240 Cal. App. 2d 178 - King v. Timber Structures, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Celli v. Sports Car Club of America, Inc. (1972), Pearson Ford Co. v. Ford Motor Co. (1969)
36 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 807 - Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving Association · 58 Cal. 2d 601 - Teitelbaum Furs, Inc. v. Dominion Ins. Co., Ltd. · Goldman v. Ecco-Phoenix Electric Corp. · 208 Cal. App. 2d 367 - Cahill Bros., Inc. v. Clementina Co. · 54 Cal. 2d 445 - Harvey Machine Co. v. Hatzel
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1 ‘ 2. Absent such a provision as is described in 1, the indemnitee may recover on his contract even if he were negligent, provided his negligence is of the passive kind. [Citations.] “3. But, absent such a contract as in 1, if the indemnitee has been negligent and his negligence is active, he may not recover on his contract of indemnity. [Citations.] “The difference between the two kinds of negligence is simply that one is passively negligent if he merely fails to act in fulfillment of a duty of care which the law imposes on him; in this ease, the duty of a general contractor. One is actively negligent if he participates in some manner in the conduct or omission which caused the injury. [Citation.] The indemnitee may not then recover even though the indemnitor’s negligence was the greater. [Citation.] It is the character of the negligence and not its degree which is determinative. [Citation.] When it is established that plaintiff (or cross-complainant) was responsible for the active negligence of one of its employees, which was at least one of the proximate causes of the accident, the right of indemnity is foreclosed. [Citation.] ””
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.