222 Cal. App. 2d 102 - Francis v. Sauve’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently May 2010 · most notably 42 Cal. 4th 644 - People v. Giordano (2007), 48 Cal. 4th 788 - Boeken v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. (2010)
2 federal appellate · 35 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 46 Cal. 2d 818 - People v. Watson · Dalehite v. United States · Alarid v. Vanier · Treadwell v. Nickel · Brandelius v. City & County of San Francisco
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'Medical witnesses need not testify positively to support a finding of proximate cause. Their opinion of the probabilities is sufficient for that purpose. (Travelers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 33 Cal.2d 685 [ 203 P.2d 747 ]; cf. Ostertag v. Bethlehem etc. Corp., 65 Cal.App.2d 795, 806-807 [ 151 P.2d 647 ].)' (Robison v. Leigh (1957) 153 Cal.App.2d 730, 732 [ 315 P.2d 42 ]; see also Francis v. Sauve (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 102, 117-118 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 754 ].)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is within the exclusive province of the trier of fact to determine the credibility of experts and the weight to be given to their testimony. ... Where there is conflicting expert evidence, the determination of the trier of fact as to its weight and value and the resolution of such conflict are not subject to review on appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“that the general tenor of the precedents in this state indicates a disapproval of expert testimony designed to reconstruct what occurred in a traffic accident.”
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.