Coffey v. Slingerland’s Empirical Analysis
1935
Citation profile
Relationships
Relies on Douglas v. Southern Pacific Co. · Berkovitz v. American River Gravel Co. · Darling v. Pacific Electric Railway Co. · 83 Cal. App. 358 - Giorgetti v. Wollaston · 105 Cal. App. 224 - Morgan v. Los Angeles Rock & Gravel Corp.
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. . The bald, unqualified statement that one receiving a direction or signal from a traific officer authorized by ordinance so to give traffic diréctions thereby has an absolute right to cross an intersection, irrespective - of the movement of other traffic, is not a correct statement of the law. This right to proceed at the direction of a traffic officer is always conditioned upon the continued exercise of due care by the person obeying such direction, so- that the rights of other persons in the same intersection may. be properly safeguarded. Such direction of a traffic officer is not to be complied with if compliance would probably result in an accident. Under all circumstances, due care must be exercised, and such exercise of due care is paramount to the duty of obeying the traffic officer’s signal.””
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.