Wright v. Sellers’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently April 1971 · most notably 30 Cal. 2d 193 - Cope v. Davison (1947), Porter v. Hofman (1938)
26 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 Krause v. Rarity · 43 Cal. App. 416 - Helme v. Great Western Milling Co. · 132 Cal. App. 124 - Howard v. Howard · 134 Cal. App. 622 - Turner v. Standard Oil Co.
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... this intentional act, or intentional failure to act, must be under circumstances disclosing a knowledge on the part of the driver that an injury to his guest would be a probable result, or under circumstances from which such knowledge on the part of the driver might be inferred. The consciousness must relate to the intentional act done, or to the intentional failure to act. The intent may be implied from the surrounding circumstances. An actual intent to injure is not a necessary element of which positive evidentiary proof must be produced. Such proof would rarely be possible. Few drivers would confess to the intent to injure a passenger. It is sufficient if the act, or the failure to act, be done or omitted under such circumstances that the driver should have known that injury to his guest was a probable result, for again, positive evidentiary proof of such knowledge would be an impossibility in most cases. (Jones v. Hathaway, 22 Cal.App.2d 316 [ 70 P.2d 681 ].)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“'Wilful misconduct' within the meaning of this statute, may be defined as intentionally doing something in the operation of a motor vehicle which should not be done or intentionally failing to do something that should be done under circumstances disclosing knowledge, express or implied, that an injury to a guest will be a probable result.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“they are: (1) A wrongful act knowingly done; and (2) knowledge, either actual or to be implied from the circumstances, that an injury to a guest will be a probable result. The actual distinction between the two types of acts constituting”
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.