Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 78 Cal. App. 2d 87 - Pollind v. Polich

78 Cal. App. 2d 87 - Pollind v. Polich’s Empirical Analysis

1947

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
January 1966
most recently cited

22 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 10 Cal. 2d 138 - People v. Gidney · Maffeo v. Holmes · 114 Cal. App. 308 - Davilla v. Liberty Life Insurance · 127 Cal. App. 50 - Gayton v. Pacific Fruit Express Co. · 74 Cal. App. 2d 464 - De Priest v. City of Glendale

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

  1. ““The second ground of error in law is directed at the court’s refusal to give an instruction embracing a portion of section 550 of the Motor Vehicle Code having to do with right of way at intersections generally. The court instructed the jury in the language of section 552 of the Motor Vehicle “Code which section pertains to right of way at through highway intersections. It is conceded that the highway upon which the collision occurred was a through highway. “A number of cases have been cited by plaintiff in support of his (her) contention. These decisions, however, hold merely that it is not error to give instructions based both upon section 550 and section 552. None of the authorities ■ cited hold that it is error to refuse to give an instruction based on section 550 where the collision occurred at a through highway intersection. “Plaintiff argues that if the driver of plaintiff’s car did not stop before entering the intersection section 552 would not be applicable but that section 550 would be applicable. In analyzing this argument, we must bear in mind that section 552 was amended in 1947. Prior to that amendment the section provided ‘ The driver of any vehicle which has stopped etc.’; the section as amended reads ‘The driver of any vehicle shall stop etc.’. It seems to me that the amendment to the section takes away the main support to plaintiff’s conten tion. If plaintiff’s argument is accepted, we will arrive at a very interesting result which can be demonstrated by th”
    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.