21 Cal. 3d 829 - Williamson v. Superior Court’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
3 district · 60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently June 2013 · most notably Beers v. Bayliner Marine Corp. (1996), Philippine Export & Foreign Loan Guarantee Corp. v. Chuidian (1990)
3 district · 60 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 56 Cal. 2d 355 - Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court · 2 Cal. 3d 161 - Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Superior Court · Oceanside Union School District v. Superior Court · 58 Cal. 2d 194 - San Diego Professional Assn. v. Superior Court · 231 Cal. App. 2d 195 - Swartzman v. Superior Court
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`. . . is predicated on common sense, and public policy. The purpose of a trial is to arrive at the true facts. A trial is not a game where one counsel safely may sit back and refuse to produce evidence where in the nature of things his client is the only source from which that evidence may be secured. A defendant is not under a duty to produce testimony adverse to himself but if he fails to produce evidence that would naturally have been produced he must take the risk that the trier of fact will infer, and properly so, that the evidence, had it been produced, would have been adverse. '”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In determining what inferences to draw from the evidence or facts in the case against a party, the trier of fact may consider, among other things, the party's failure to explain or to deny by his testimony such evidence or facts in the case against him, or his willful suppression of evidence relating thereto, if such be the case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.