84 Cal. App. 2d 810 - Jaffe v. Vitz’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
December 1966
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 21 Cal. 2d 176 - Roy v. Salisbury · Evans v. Gibson · Rosenfield v. Vosper · Frazure v. Fitzpatrick · 46 Cal. App. 2d 507 - Smith v. Coleman
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The general rule prevailing in California on this subject is this: Where there is competent independent evidence in the record which supports the judgment without recourse to the testimony erroneously admitted, generally the error is not prejudicial as it will be presumed on appeal that the trial judge considered and relied upon the competent evidence in mating his findings and rendering the judgment. (Evans v. Gibson, 220 Cal. 476 [ 31 P.2d 389 ] ; Roy v. Salisbury, 21 Cal.2d 176 [ 130 P.2d 706 ] ; Frazure v. Fitzpatrick, 21 Cal.2d 851 [ 136 P.2d 566 ]; Ford v. Lou Kum Shu, supra, [ 26 Cal.App. 203 ( 146 P. 199 )]; Watt v. Copeland, 92 Cal.App. 161 [ 267 P. 928 ] ; Cordi v. Garcia, 56 Cal.App.2d 584 [ 132 P.2d 887 ].)””
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.