People v. Oliver’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““When people live in urban and congested areas they acquire certain rights against, and they assume certain responsibilities towards, their neighbors. While they have the right to use their property, within certain limits, as they see fit, even if it annoys the neighbors or depreciates the value of adjoining property, they have no legal right to put their land to an unnatural use and to create thereon an unnecessary hazard to other properties. In a very real sense there must be a balancing of conveniences and of rights. Where the danger to an entire neighborhood is demonstrated, as it was in this case, and where the condition created is unnecessary and can be remedied, prudence, common sense, fair play and justice require that the danger to the entire neighborhood be eliminated. In such a situation the condition may be found to be a nuisance and abated.” (See also Hassell v. City & County of San Francisco, 11 Cal.2d 168, 170 [1] [ 78 P.2d 1021 ]; Anderson v. Souza, 38 Cal.2d 825, 838 [11] [ 243 P.2d 497 ]; McIntosh v. Brimmer, 68 Cal.App. 770, 777 [3-5] [ 230 P. 203 ].)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 196 Cal. App. 2d 485 - County of San Diego v. Carlstrom