Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 95 CALAPP2D 136 - Cole v. Ridings

Cole v. Ridings’s Empirical Analysis

1949

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
2
states following
March 1976
most recently cited

54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently March 1976 · most notably Brandelius v. City & County of San Francisco (1957), 40 Cal. 2d 630 - Sills v. Los Angeles Transit Lines (1953)

54 state decisions

4201949195019601970decided

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 24 Cal. 2d 133 - Oettinger v. Stewart · 20 Cal. 2d 585 - Speck v. Sarver · Rogers v. Interstate Transit Co. · Mundy v. Marshall · Paulsen v. McDuffie

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

  1. ““(a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway. “(b) The provisions of this section shall not’ relieve the driver of a vehicle from the duty to exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian upon a roadway.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““At the outset of this trial, each party was entitled to the presumptions of law that every person takes ordinary care of his own concerns and that he obeys the law. These presumptions are a form of prima facie evidence and will support findings in accordance therewith, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. When there is other evidence that conflicts with such a presumption, it is the jury’s duty to weigh that evidence against the presumption and any evidence that may support the presumption, to determine which, if either, preponderates. Such deliberations, of course, shall be related to, and in accordance with, my instructions on the burden of proof.””
    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.