Gordon v. Aztec Brewing Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 136 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 159 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably 19 Cal. 3d 22 - Ray v. Alad Corp. (1977), 42 Cal. 2d 682 - Burr v. Sherwin Williams Co. (1954)
5 federal appellate · 136 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 Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. · 20 Cal. 2d 839 - Stark v. Coker · 31 Cal. 2d 586 - Vaughn v. Jonas · Minifie v. Rowley · Callet v. Alioto
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 159 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ [W]here the recognition of the fiction of separate corporate existence would foster an injustice . . . the courts will refuse to recognize it.” [P. 522.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““A defendant is deemed to have control at the time of the alleged negligent act although not at the time of the accident, provided plaintiff first proves that the condition of the instrumentality had not been changed after it left the defendant’s possession. The defendant is not charged with the duty of showing that something happened to the bottle after it left its control and management. In order to be entitled to the benefit of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the plaintiff must show that every person who moved or touched the bottle after it left the control of the defendant, did so with due care, and that during said time the bottle was not accessible to extraneous harmful forces.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““From the happening of the accident involved in this case, as established by the evidence, there arises an inference that the proximate cause of the occurrence was some negligent conduct on the part of the defendant. That inference is a form of evidence, and if there is none other tending to overthrow it, or if the inference preponderates over contrary evidence, it warrants a verdict for the plaintiff.””
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.