Shields v. Oxnard Harbor District’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently October 2013 · most notably People v. Western Fruit Growers (1943), Nunneley v. Edgar Hotel (1950)
62 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 People v. Nakis · Heron v. Riley · Evans v. Superior Court · Kast v. Miller & Lux · 115 Cal. App. 563 - Bushnell v. Yoshika Tashiro
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A general verdict imports findings in favor of the prevailing party on all material issues and, if there is substantial evidence to sustain a verdict on one count which is unaffected by error, the fact that there is not sufficient evidence to sustain the necessary findings of fact upon another count to support a verdict, or that there have been errors in connection with such other count, will not justify a reversal of the general verdict (Hume v. Fresno Irr. Dist., 21 Cal.App.2d 348, 356 [ 69 P.2d 483 ]; King v. Schumacher, 32 Cal.App.2d 172, 173, 179 [ 89 P.2d 466 ]; see also 2 Cal.Jur. [1921] 1029).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The rule is established in California that after evidence of an agency has been received as in the instant case, declarations or admissions of the agent are admissible against the employer. ( 1870, subsec. 5, Code Civ. Proc.) Therefore, the trial court properly admitted in the present case evidence of declarations and admissions made by defendant McDougall at the time of and after the accident.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““. . . The law is established in California that, if there is proof that (1) an automobile belongs to an employer, and (2) at the time of an accident is being operated by an employee of the owner, an inference arises sufficient to support a finding that the employee was operating the automobile (a) by the authority of his employer, and (b) within the scope of his employment. ...””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Halbert v. Berlinger
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.