Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 31 Cal. App. 2d 321 - MacE v. Watanabe

31 Cal. App. 2d 321 - MacE v. Watanabe’s Empirical Analysis

1939

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
March 1960
most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently March 1960

15 state decisions

701939194019501960decided

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.

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

  1. “This evidence was not like that offered in Hurtel v. Albert Cohn, Inc., 5 Cal.2d 145 [52 Pac.(2d) 922], to show the habit of pedestrians to violate traffic signals maintained for their protection. ... The evidence showed that the county had constructed and maintained these two separate approaches, and the further evidence that they were commonly used as such by all motor traffic was material to respondents' case.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. 42 Cal. 2d 71 - Cucinella v. Weston Biscuit Co.
  2. “rather than to use the soft gravel forming the”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. 42 Cal. 2d 71 - Cucinella v. Weston Biscuit Co.

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.