Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 224 Cal. App. 2d 595 - Sinclair v. Arnebergh

224 Cal. App. 2d 595 - Sinclair v. Arnebergh’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
2
states following
March 2022
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently March 2022

2 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

601964197019801990200020102020decided

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 White v. Towers · Polk v. City of Los Angeles · Terry v. Bender · Wilson v. Beville · Kennedy v. Ross

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

  1. “The reason for the [police officer indemnification] rule is: The duties of policemen are performed for the benefit of the public, and the public is directly concerned in preserving and protecting these officers from the hazard of death or bodily injuries to which the performance of their official duties expose them. Aside from any considerations purely personal to the officer, it is for the public good that these officers, as instruments through which the city performs its functions, shall be shielded from the personal hazards [of litigation] which attend the discharge of their official duties. With such protection afforded, the public can expect that its laws will be zealously enforced without any hesitation occasioned by considerations of possible personal involvement in defending resulting litigation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “With such protection afforded, the public can expect that its laws will be zealously enforced without any hesitation occasioned by consideration of possible personal involvement in defending resulting litigation. Id, at 597-598, 36 Cal.Rptr. p. 813.”
    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.