212 Cal. App. 2d 440 - Kramer v. Barnes’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
78 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently January 2005 · most notably 11 Cal. 3d 1 - D'AMICO v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974), 86 Cal. App. 3d 656 - Tresemer v. Barke (1978)
78 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 19 Cal. 2d 553 - Eagle Oil & Refining Co. v. Prentice · 46 Cal. 2d 715 - Desny v. Wilder · 200 Cal. App. 2d 741 - Snider v. Snider · Cosper v. Smith & Wesson Arms Co. · Lashley v. Koerber
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) It must contain facts sufficient to entitle the moving party to a judgment, i.e., facts establishing every element necessary to sustain a judgment in his favor; (2) such facts must be set forth with particularity, i.e., all requisite evidentiary facts must be stated, and not the ultimate facts or conclusions of law; and (3) the affiant must show that if sworn as a witness he can testify competently to the evidentiary facts contained in the affidavit. [Citations.] These requirements are applicable even though no counteraffidavit is filed, ... [Citations.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“a collision in which a following motorist collides with the rear end of a vehicle ahead is some evidence of negligence on the part of the following motorist. ( Cartmill v. Arden Farms Co., 83 Cal. App.2d 787, 789 [ 189 P.2d 739 ]; Banes v. Dunger, 181 Cal. App.2d 276, 282 [ 5 Cal. Rptr. 278 ]; Gornstein v. Priver, supra, 64 Cal. App. 249, 255 ; Linde v. Emmick, 16 Cal. App.2d 676,682 [ 61 P.2d 338 ]; Wright v. Ponitz, 44 Cal. App.2d 215, 219 [ 112 P.2d 25 ]; Shannon v. Thomas, 57 Cal. App.2d 187, 194 [ 134 P.2d 522 ].)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In this regard it should be noted that since a deposition is given under oath [citation] and filed in the proceedings [citation] for use as evidence in the action ..., it may be used in a summary judgment proceeding without the necessity of a showing by the affiant that if sworn as a witness he can testify competently to the evidentiary facts contained in the deposition. [Citations.]”
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.