Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 59 Cal. App. 7 - Beyerle v. Clift

59 Cal. App. 7 - Beyerle v. Clift’s Empirical Analysis

1922

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
2
states following
November 1961
most recently cited

26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently November 1961 · most notably Douglas v. Southern Pacific Co. (1928), Spear v. Leuenberger (1941)

26 state decisions

13019221930194019501960decided

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 Pierce v. United Gas and Electric Co. · 57 Cal. App. 124 - Keena v. United RailRoads of San Francisco · Kelly v. Santa Barbara Consolidated Railroad

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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The authorities are legion to the effect that a so-called ‘formula’ instruction must contain all the elements essential to a recovery, and the absence of any one of such elements may not be compensated for nor cured by a reference thereto in other instructions correctly and fully stating the law. This principle is well stated in Beyerle v. Clift, 59 Cal. App. 7, 9 [ 209 Pac. 1015 ], wherein it is held that ‘if an instruction by its terms purports to state the conditions necessary to a verdict, it must state all those conditions and must not overlook pleaded defenses on which substantial evidence has been introduced. “It is clear that an instruction directing a verdict for the plaintiff in the event that the jury finds certain facts to be true, must embrace all the things necessary to show the legal liability of the defendant and to warrant the direction or conclusion contained therein that plaintiff is entitled to a verdict, and such is the rule in this state.” . . . The court gave other instructions on the subject of contributory negligence, the correctness of which is not challenged. But this is not sufficient to overcome the prejudicial character of the erroneous instructions. ’ ””
    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.