People v. Henderson’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably 48 Cal. 2d 189 - People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. Russell (1957), 129 Cal. App. 3d 222 - McCarthy v. California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1982)
27 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 Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal · 24 Cal. 2d 267 - Metcalf v. County of Los Angeles · Colegrove Water Co. v. City of Hollywood · Vanderhurst v. Tholcke · City of Emporia v. Humphrey
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * It is a well-settled principle of common-law, which has frequently been embodied in statutory form, that a structure maintained upon a public roadway is unlawful (citing cases), and is a nuisance per se subject to abatement at the instance of proper authority, (citing cases). It is no defense to an action based thereon that the structure is off the traveled part of the highway or that sufficient areas remain to allow public use of the right of way in the accustomed manner, (citing cases) Where the sole question is whether the maintenance of the .structure or obstruction is inconsistent with the full enjoyment of the right of way by the public, the owner of the fee is- deemed to possess no greater rights than those who are strangers to the title, (citing cases.)””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * defendants claim the right as owners of the fee title, subject to the easement, to use the land for any purposes so long as such use does not interfere with the use of the right of way by the public. Specifically, they claim that the maintenance of their shed did not constitute an interference for the reason that it was located 15 feet from the established highway, was on a portion of the land that was not used by others, and did not interfere with the vision of those who had occasion to use the highway. The state does not claim that the shed interfered in any manner with the free use of the highway by the public, but insists that it nevertheless encroached upon the right of the public to use every part of the right of way at any time without interference; that the fact that there was no interference with the actual uses that were being made of the right of way is immaterial; that the shed as maintained constituted a nuisance subj ect to abatement in the present action; and that defendants had and could have no right to maintain the shed on the right of way except as the holders of a permit issued by the State Department of Public Works, which permit defendants had not received or applied for. The state does not dispute the right of defendants as owners of the fee to use the land embraced by the right of way in such a manner as will not interfere with the public right. Its contention is that the authority to determine whether a contemplated private use is consistent w”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ * * * A line must be drawn between those encroachments that would, and those that would not, infringe upon the rights and be adverse to the interests of the public, and that line must necessarily be drawn by the Department of Public Works in the proper exercise of its discretion.””
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.