How cited: Finkle v. Tait · Go Syfert

Finkle v. Tait (1921)

green · 95 citation events across 5 courts. Showing the 11 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
All Green 11
Treatment trajectory · 1922 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
192219742026
Sort: By significance · Most recent
green King v. Unger (1938)
Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
(Wright v. Foreman, 86 Cal. App. 595, 604 [ 261 Pac. 481 ]; Bullock v. Western Wholesale Drug Co., 91 Cal. App. 369, 372 [ 266 Pac. 978 ]; Wing v. Kishi, 92 Cal. App. 495, 499 [ 268 Pac. 483 ] ; Chase v. Thomas, 7 Cal. App. (2d) 440, 444 [ 46 Pac. (2d) 200 ]; Deike v. East Bay Street Railways, Ltd., 7 Cal. App. (2d) 544, 550 [ 46 Pac. (2d) 812 ]; Finkle v. Tait, 55 Cal. App. 425, 432 [ 203 Pac. 1031 ] ; Horton v. Stoll, 3 Cal. App. (2d) 687, 690 [ 40 Pac. (2d) 603 ] ; Koeppe…
green Kalfus v. Fraze (1955)
Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.
(Sheldon v. James, 175 Cal. 474, 479 [ 166 P. 8 , 2 A.L.R. 1493 ]; Finkle v. Tait, 55 Cal.App. 425, 432-433 [ 203 P. 1031 ] ; Wagy v. Brave, 133 *432 Cal.App. 413, 416 [ 24 P.2d 209 ] ; Ramsperger v. Los Angeles M.
green Weissman v. Seehusen (1942)
Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.
The facts in the present case are very similar to those in Finkle v. Tait, 55 Cal.App. 425, 432 [ 203 P. 1031 ] and Chase v. Thomas, 7 Cal.App.2d 440, 443 [ 46 P.2d 200 ].
green Von Arx v. City of Burlingame (1936)
Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.
(Zibbell v. Southern Pacific Co., 160 Cal. 237, 242 [ 116 Pac. 513 ]; Lord v. Stacy, 68 Cal. App. 517, 521 [ 229 Pac. 874 ] ; Finkle v. Tait, 55 Cal. App. 425, 433 [203 Pac. 1031].) In the Zibbell case a train was approaching upon a railroad track.
green Flores v. Los Angeles Railway Corp. (1936)
Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.
(Wright v. Foreman, 86 Cal. App. 595, 604 [ 261 Pac. 481 ] ; Bullock v. Western Wholesale Drug Co., 91 Cal. App. 369, 372 [ 266 Pac. 978 ]; Wing v. Kishi, 92 Cal. App. 495, 498 [ 268 Pac. 483 ] ; Chase v. Thomas, 7 Cal. App. (2d) 440, 444 [ 46 Pac. (2d) 200 ] ; Deike v. East Bay Street Railways, Ltd., 7 Cal. App. (2d) 544, 550 [ 46 Pac. (2d) 812 ] ; Finkle v. Tait, 55 Cal. App. 425, 432 [ 203 Pac. 1031 ]; Horton v. Stoll, 3 Cal. App. (2d) 687, 690 [ 40 Pac. (2d) 603 ] ; Koep…
green Gibb v. Cleave (1936)
Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.
(Wright v. Foreman, 86 Cal. App. 595, 604 [ 261 Pac. 481 ]; Bullock v. Western Wholesale Drug Co., 91 Cal. App. 369, 372 [ 266 Pac. 978 ]; Wing v. Kishi, 92 Cal. App. 495, 499 [ 268 Pac. 483 ]; Chase v. Thomas, 7 Cal. App. (2d) 440, 444 [ 46 Pac. (2d) 200 ]; Deike v. East Bay Street Railways, Ltd., 7 Cal. App. (2d) 544, 550 [ 46 Pac. (2d) 812 ]; Finkle v. Tait, 55 Cal. App. 425, 432 [ 203 Pac. 1031 ]; Horton v. Stoll, 3 Cal. App. (2d) 687, 690 [ 40 Pac. (2d) 603 ]; Koeppel v…
green Peel v. California Belting Co., Inc. (1930)
Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.
(Lord v. Stacy, 68 Cal. App. 517 [ 229 Pac. 874 ]; Finkle v. Tait, 55 Cal. App. 425, 432 [ 203 Pac. 1031 ]; Noisi v. Empire Laundry, 117 Cal. 260 [ 49 Pac. 185 ]; Sheldon v. James, 175 Cal. 474 [2 A. L.
green Bence v. Teddy's Taxi (1929)
Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.
(Niosi v. Empire Steam Laundry, 117 Cal. 257 [ 49 Pac. 185 ] ; Davis v. Breuner Co., 167 Cal. 683 [ 140 Pac. 586 ]; Lord v. Stacy, 68 Cal. App. 517 [ 229 Pac. 874 ]; Finkle v. Tait, 55 Cal. App. 425, 432 [ 203 Pac. 1031 ]; Mayer v. Anderson, 36 Cal. App. 740 [ 173 Pac. 174 ] ; Filson v. Balkins, (Cal. App.) 273 Pac. 445 , superseded by 206 Cal. 209 [ 273 Pac. 578 ].) Conceding the negligence of the defendants in the present ease with respect to the careless manner in which t…
green Kinnear v. Martinelli (1927)
Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.
In each of these cases, however, there was evidence upon which the court was warranted in making use of such declarations. *729 Finally, the respondent cited with confidence in support of this objectionable instruction, the concurring statement of the supreme court in denying a rehearing in the case of Finkle v. Tait, 55 Cal. App. 425, 432 [ 203 Pac. 1031 ], in which a directed verdict in favor of the defendant was affirmed.
green Lower v. Hughes (1926)
Rule Authority · Cal. Ct. App.
The appellant contends that as a matter of law the plaintiff under the foregoing facts was guilty of contributory negligence, and he cites Finkle v. Tait, 55 Cal. App. 425, 432 [ 203 Pac. 1031 ]; Sheldon v. James, 175 Cal. 474 [2 A. L.
green Uhl v. Fertig (1922)
Cited (see also) · Cal. Ct. App. · signal: see also · 2 citations in this opinion
See, also, Finkle v. Tait, 55 Cal. App. 425 [ 203 Pac. 1031 ]. [2] And we think that the finding as to defendant’s negligence can be sustained only because of the evidence of defendant’s failure to observe the requirement not to exceed the maximum of thirty-five miles per hour while traveling on the highway.