Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 31 Cal. App. 2d 149 - Allbritton v. Interstate Transit Lines

31 Cal. App. 2d 149 - Allbritton v. Interstate Transit Lines’s Empirical Analysis

1939

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
October 1958
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Anne Sweeney v. William G Errving · Scarborough v. Urgo · Valente v. Sierra Ry. Co. of Cal. · 116 Cal. App. 674 - Seitzman v. Srere Corp.

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

  1. “because there was in the record a substantial conflict in the evidence upon the issue of whether the accident was caused by, or resulted from, such inevitable casualty or unavoidable accident, or cause beyond human care or foresight to prevent. We cannot say as a matter of law that the instructions here under attack were not prejudicial to the defendant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “that the appellant was not prejudiced by the court's failure to instruct the jury that the burden of proof as to the main issue of negligence remained with the plaintiff throughout the trial, for the reason that under the evidence the jury was bound to find against defendant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the break showed approximately fifty per cent old break and fifty per cent new break.”
    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.