Johnston v. Black Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1939
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently November 1966
16 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 Judson v. Giant Powder Co. · Mautino v. Sutter Hospital Assn. · 41 Cal. App. 323 - Maupin v. Solomon · Warner v. . Erie Railway Co. · Baddeley v. Shea
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Having introduced the evidence above mentioned the inference on which the plaintiff relied was dispelled as a matter of law. Engstrom v. Auburn Automobile Sale Corp., 11 Cal. 2d 64 , 77 P. 2d 1059 . In the cited case, having called attention to the difference between a presumption and an inference, 11 Cal. 2d on page 70, 77 P. 2d on page 1063, the court said: 'On the other hand, an inference is dispelled as a matter of law when it is rebutted by clear, positive, and uncontradicted evidence which is not open to doubt, even though such evidence is produced by the opposite side. Maupin v. Solomon, 41 Cal. App. 323, 324-326 , 183 P. 198 ; Martinelli v. Bond, 42 Cal. App. 209 , 183 P. 461 .’ It follows that the evidence contained in the record would not support a verdict for the plaintiff whether the instructions complained of were technically correct or otherwise.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““the defendants took up the proof and introduced evidence to the effect that the fluoroscopic table was purchased about eight years before the date of the accident from a reliable manufacturer, that the table was of standard make, that many others were being used in the state of California and elsewhere and that some of them have been in use for about twenty-five years. The defendants’ table was in daily use and sometimes was used three or more times a day. It was, at frequent intervals, oiled, cleaned, inspected, and minor repairs made thereon. Prior to the accident to the plaintiff nothing had occurred that indicated any weakness in or wear on the metal pin which broke. Prior to the moment of the accident the defendants had no notice whatever of any defect in the pin or in the table.””
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.