Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 9 Cal. 3d 593 - Bedford v. Re

9 Cal. 3d 593 - Bedford v. Re’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
3
states following
July 2009
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently July 2009 · most notably 74 Cal. App. 3d 762 - Levy-Zentner Co. v. SOUTHERN PAC. TRANSPORTATION (1977), Parrillo v. Giroux Co., Inc. (1981)

24 state decisions

1201973198019902000decided

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 25 Cal. 2d 486 - Ybarra v. Spangard · Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. · 42 Cal. 2d 682 - Burr v. Sherwin Williams Co. · 39 Cal. 2d 436 - Zentz v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. · 4 Cal. 3d 379 - Jiminez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

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

  1. “It is settled law in this state that the ‘doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable where the accident is of such a nature that it can be said, in the light of past experience, that it probably was the result of negligence by someone and that the defendant is probably the one responsible.’ [Citation omitted.] According to the classic and oft-repeated statement, there are three conditions for the application of the doctrine: ‘(1) the accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; (3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff. [Citations omitted.] * * * ’”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “it cannot be said that the trial court's failure to give a res ipsa loquitur instruction was harmless”
    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.