Conroy v. Perez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 66 state decisions

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

1. “`The presence of children is in itself a warning requiring the exercise of care for their safety.... Moreover, if the evidence shows that a driver has knowledge of the presence of children he may be held to have been responsible although it appears that he did not see the injured child in time to prevent the injury....' ... In Freeland v. Jewel Tea Co., 118 Cal. App.2d 764, 769 [ 258 P.2d 1032 ], it was held that it is ordinarily necessary to exercise greater care for the protection and safety of young children than for adult persons possessing normal and mature faculties ( Conroy v. Perez, supra, 64 Cal. App.2d 217, 224 ); that their conduct is unpredictable and one operating a motor vehicle should anticipate their thoughtlessness and impulsiveness ( Shannon v. Central-Gaither U. Sch. Dist., supra, 133 Cal. App. 124 [ 23 P.2d 769 ]). It was also held that the presence of children is in itself a warning requiring the exercise of care for their safety.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 48 Cal. 2d 283 - Garibaldi v. Borchers Bros.

2. ““ ‘The granting or denial of a new trial is a matter resting so largely in the discretion of a trial court that it will not be disturbed except upon a manifest and unmistakable abuse. This is especially so when the discretion is used in awarding a new trial, for this action does not finally dispose of the matter, and it is only in rare instances and on very strong grounds that the reviewing court will set aside such an order. . . . “ ‘. . . But so long as a reasonable or even fairly debatable justification under the law is shown for the action taken, that action will not be set aside, even if, as a question of first impression, the appellate court might feel inclined to take a different view.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hoel v. City of Los Angeles

3. “eliminating the blank space, and choosing the alternatives which were obviously appropriate. The drawing of the inference afforded by the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was of great importance to plaintiff's case, and, in view of all the circumstances, we cannot say that the trial court abused its broad discretionary powers in granting a new trial. The order is affirmed. Shenk, J., Traynor, J., and Spence, J., concurred. CARTER, J. I concur in the judgment of affirmance. The instruction that”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Shaw v. Pacific Greyhound Lines