Smith v. Ricker’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently July 2012
12 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 28 Cal. 2d 121 - People v. Valentine · 23 Cal. 2d 390 - People v. Ricciardi · 30 Cal. 2d 817 - County of San Diego v. California Water & Telephone Co. · Gurnsey v. Northern California Power Co. · Wright v. Austin
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(Hamerly v. Denton (Alaska) 359 P.2d 121 - 123.) Under these circumstances we conclude that the instant decision is controlled by the further holding in Smith v. Ricker, supra, 226 Cal.App.2d 96, 101 , where the court said: “There is no evidence here that the public . . . ever acquired any proprietary interest in the site of the old roadway. Thus the public had nothing more than a right of passage over the land. [Citing cases] Since the State of Califoraia never owned any ‘lands ... or rights in lands,’ abandonment . . . could be accomplished without a formal resolution,”
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.