Bowler v. Roos’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 state decisions

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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘It is established that the failure of one of the plaintiffs to prove loss will not defeat recovery by another of the plaintiffs whose pecuniary loss has been proved. And this notwithstanding the fact that under the statute, as interpreted by our courts, only one action may be brought and only one judgment recovered. So far as the interpretation of this statute is concerned, no reason appears why the rule should be any different where the evidence discloses that one of the parties is not entitled to recover, not on account of a failure to prove pecuniary loss, but because of the intervention of another rule, such as contributory negligence. In Estate of Riccomi, 185 Cal. 458 [ 197 P. 97 , 14 A.L.R. 509 ], ... it is said that it would be absurd to hold that because two heirs must join in one action, the one proving damage must share the proceeds with the one suffering no injury. It would seem equally absurd to hold that an innocent party cannot recover because another party, with whom he is required by law to be joined as plaintiff, is not innocent.’ ” (See also Flores v. Brown, 39 Cal.2d 622, 631 [ 248 P.2d 922 ]; Chinnis v. Pomona Pump Co., 36 Cal.App.2d 633, 640 [ 98 P.2d 560 ]; Southern Pac. Co. v. Day, 38 F.2d 958, 962 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 140 Cal. App. 2d 536 - Perkins v. Robertson