39 Cal. App. 289 - Dameron v. Ansbro’s Empirical Analysis
1918
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently March 1978 · most notably Sinz v. Owens (1949), Citti v. Bava (1928)
33 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 Dexter v. Hall · Pierce v. United Gas and Electric Co. · McGraw v. Kerr · Hesler v. California Hospital Co. · 29 Cal. App. 321 - Houghton v. Dickson
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Dr. Priestly, a witness for plaintiff and appellant, testified that he was a member of the San Joaquin County Medical Association and he was asked if Dr. Dameron and Dr. Fitzgerald were members. To this question an objection was made, and in reply to the court’s inquiry as to the purposes of the question, counsel for respondent stated,: ‘the purpose of showing whether or not the association protects any member in litigation brought against him in a ease of the present character. ’ It was not admissible for that purpose, as is virtually conceded by respondent. In Pierce v. United Gas & Electric Co., 161 Cal. 188 [ 118 Pac. 706 ], the Supreme Court said: 'Evidence that a defendant in an action for damages is insured against loss by reason thereof is not admissible (Roche v. Llewellyn Iron Works Co., 140 Cal. 563 [ 74 Pac. 147 ]), and it would undoubtedly be improper for counsel for plaintiff to endeavor to get such a fact before the jury by question designed solely for that purpose.' “In Shay v. Horr, 78 Wash. 667 [ 139 Pac. 604 ], it was said: ‘We have held in these cases, supra, that it is improper to either directly or indirectly get before the jury any fact which conveys the information that the defendant is insured against loss in case of a recovery against it, and that the striking of the answers conveying such information and the instructing of the jury not to consider it will not save the error.’ “It is altogether probable that the jury would be more inclined to find a”
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.