3 Cal. App. 3d 904 - Schultz v. Mathias’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently June 2018
18 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 69 Cal. 2d 122 - People v. Bassett · Alarid v. Vanier · Satterlee v. Orange Glenn School District · 112 Cal. App. 2d 638 - Estate of Teed · 53 Cal. 2d 427 - Yarrow v. State of California
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“One of the statutory grounds for a new trial is: `Newly discovered evidence, material for the party making the application, which he could not, with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 657, subd. 4.) The essential elements which must be established are (1) that the evidence is newly discovered; (2) that reasonable diligence has been exercised in its discovery and production; and (3) that the evidence is material to the movant's case. While the granting of a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is ordinarily a matter which is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, where the evidence adduced in support of the motion is lacking in essential particulars, there is no basis for the exercise of discretion. ( Slemons v. Paterson, 14 Cal.2d 612 , 615-616 ...; Bostard v. Bostard, 258 Cal. App.2d 793 , 799-800 ...; Lubeck v. Lopes, 254 Cal. App.2d 63 , 67 ...; De Felice v. Tabor, 149 Cal. App.2d 273, 275-276 ....)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“'The test is whether the actor took one of the courses of action which a standard man in that emergency might have taken, and such a course is not negligent even though it led to an injury which might have been prevented by adopting an alternative course of action'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Shiver v. Laramee
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.