Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 36 Cal. App. Supp. 2d 767 - Roberts v. Casey

36 Cal. App. Supp. 2d 767 - Roberts v. Casey’s Empirical Analysis

1939

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2018

19 state decisions

50193919401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Green v. T. A. Shoemaker & Co. · 229 Mo. App. 789 - Marden v. Radford · Mathews v. Livingston · White v. Maynard · 114 Cal. App. 192 - Stone v. City of Los Angeles

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

  1. ““While in their broad lines the distinctions between tenants on the one hand and mere guests or lodgers on the other are entirely clear yet in some classes of establishments their tendency is to shade into each other, and, therefore, attention has to be given to the detailed criteria that must be relied on to decide into which class given individuals fall. * * * “In determining, then, what was, in legal contemplation, the status of the parties in their relations with each other, it is manifest that the result cannot be said to depend on any one factor, as being decisive. It is rather a question of which direction the general effect of the various tests that have been applied, after weighing opposing ones against each other, can be said to take. It is not a question of what the relation would be if considered in some isolated aspect, but rather what is its dominant charaeer. * * * “Though we treat the question, however, not as one of fact merely but as one of mixed law and fact, it is still clear that an appellate tribunal is only justified in overruling the view taken by a trial court if the factors that enter into the relation, and mark it as of the character opposite to that found by the lower Court, so dominate the situation as to clearly nullify the effect of the factors opposed to them.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “... became the occupant of the premises as a servant, employee, agent, or licensee and the relation of master and servant or employer and employee or principal and agent or licensor and licensee has been lawfully terminated.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “so soon as a guest or lodger has, either by default in making payments due or otherwise, breached his contract he may by appropriate proceedings be ousted without the requirement of any advance notice.”
    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.