People v. Nowell’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently December 1998
14 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 9 Cal. 2d 226 - Weber v. Pinyan · Meek v. Fowler · 43 Cal. App. 416 - Helme v. Great Western Milling Co. · Porter v. Hofman · 132 Cal. App. 124 - Howard v. Howard
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * If we wished to be pedantic we would note that speed is never “in itself and alone.” Of necessity, when referring to the speed of an automobile, there is involved the highway on which it travels, with its width, surface and the presence or lack of traffic upon it. There is involved, too, the factor of visibility; was the car driven before or after dark ? When considered in relation to these matters, mere speed, without other acts, may demonstrate wilful misconduct or that the driving is reckless. * * * People v. Nowell, supra, 114 P.2d 82 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Pruett · State v. Loyland“* * * We do not wish to be understood as holding that mere speed may never constitute willful misconduct if indulged in under certain conditions. Willful misconduct, like negligence, must relate to the time, place, person and surrounding circumstances, and must be measured by them. Excessive speed under some circumstances may amount to negligence, under others to gross negligence, and under still others to willful misconduct.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Loyland““It is generally held that mere speed, of itself, does not constitute wilful misconduct. This may not always be true. There may be a point at which the speed becomes so excessive, the danger of injury to the passenger so probable, that such extreme speed alone might be held to be wilful misconduct. Speed coupled with other circumstances has been held to constitute wilful misconduct.””
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.