People v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably People v. Loop (1954), City of Pleasant Hill v. First Baptist Church (1969)
3 federal appellate · 68 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 23 Cal. 2d 390 - People v. Ricciardi · People v. Ocean Shore Railroad, Inc. · People v. La MacChia · City of Oakland v. Pacific Coast Lumber & Mill Co. · 99 Cal. App. 240 - East Bay Municipal Utility District v. Kieffer
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“By taking or accepting land for a highway, the public acquire[s] only the right-of-way, and the incidents necessary to enjoying and maintaining the same, subject to the regulations in this and the Civil Code provided.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is clear that, as ruled by the trial court, the deed, read as a whole and in the light of former section 2631 and the decisions construing and applying that section, was intended to and did convey only an easement. Numerous cases have recognized that while that section was in effect the public by acquiring land for a highway acquired only the rights described in such section. (See Wright v. Austin (1904), 143 Cal. 236, 238-240 [ 76 P. 1023 , 101 Am.St.Rep. 97 , 65 L.R.A. 949 ]; Gurnsey v. Northern Cal. Power Co. (1911), 160 Cal. 699, 705 [ 117 P. 906 , 36 L.R.A. N.S. 185]; Olaine v. McGraw (1913), 164 Cal. 424, 428 [ 129 P. 460 ]; Porter v. City of Los Angeles (1920), 182 Cal. 515, 519 [ 189 P. 105 ]; City of Oakland v. Schenck (1925), 197 Cal. 456, 461 [ 241 P. 545 ]; City of Burlingame v. Norberg (1930), 210 Cal. 105, 108 [ 290 P. 587 ]; People v. Olsen (1930), 109 Cal.App. 523, 532 [ 293 P. 645 ]; People v. Church (1943), 57 Cal.App.2d Supp. 1032, 1055 [ 136 P.2d 139 ].)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“To apply the quoted language of the Las Posas case to the present situation would require us to refuse to give effect to the plain provision of former section 2631 of the Political Code that 'By taking or accepting land for a highway, the public acquire only the right of way, and the incidents necessary to enjoying and maintaining the same. ...' [Italics by the court.] Obviously, if that section is applicable at all it is applicable here; it was, indeed, an idle enactment if it meant merely that the public acquired only a right of way for a highway when the deed expressly conveyed only a right of way for a highway. ... In the present case we hold that the court ... correctly determined that the deed in question conveyed only an easement, and that any contrary implications in the Las Posas case ... must be disapproved.”
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.