45 Cal. 2d 345 - Cole v. Rush’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 233 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 246 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably 55 Cal. 2d 211 - Muskopf v. Corning Hospital District (1961), 5 Cal. 3d 153 - Vesely v. Sager (1971)
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 233 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 Philpott v. Superior Court · Gin S. Chow v. City of Santa Barbara · Howlett v. Doglio · State v. Hatfield · Pratt v. Daly
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 246 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The failure of the Legislature to change the law in a particular respect when the subject is generally before it and changes in other respects are made is indicative of an intent to leave the law as it stands in the aspects not amended.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Since it is established both by the common law and by the decisional law in this state (1) that as to a competent person it is the voluntary consumption, not the sale or gift, of intoxicating liquor which is the proximate cause of injury from its use; (2) that the competent person voluntarily consuming intoxicating liquor contributes directly to any injury caused thereby; and (3) that contributory negligence of the decedent bars recovery by his heirs or next of kin in a wrongful death action, the judgment must be, and it is, affirmed."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“'The common law gives no remedy for injury or death following the mere sale of liquor to the ordinary man, either on the theory that it is a direct wrong or on the ground that it is negligence, which imposes a legal liability on the seller for damages resulting from the intoxication.'”
2 later decisions 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.