Superior Constraction, Inc. v. Linnerooth’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably United States v. Jarvis (2007), Pond Place Partners, Inc. v. Poole (2002)
4 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
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 46 Cal. 2d 375 - Albertson v. Raboff · Perea v. Baca · 109 Ill. 2d 28 - Newkirk v. Bigard · Rehnberg v. Minnesota Homes, Inc. · Den-Gar Enterprises v. Romero
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) With few exceptions, any publication made in a judicial proceeding enjoys absolute privilege from later charges of defamation. (2) The sole purpose of recording a notice of lis pendens is to give to prospective buyers constructive notice of the pendency of the proceedings. (3) The notice of lis pendens is purely incidental to the action wherein it is filed, and refers specifically to such action and has no existence apart from that action. (4) The recording of a notice of lis pendens is in effect a republication of the proceedings in the action and therefore, it is accorded the same absolute privilege as any other publication incident to the action.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“In all actions in the district court of this state ... affecting the title to real estate in this state, the plaintiff, at the time of filing his petition or complaint, or at any time thereafter before judgment or decree, may record with the county clerk ... a notice of the pendency of the suit[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““[F]or otherwise the speaker or writer would have to decide the question of jurisdiction at his peril, and the sweep of the privilege would be inhibited at the cost of the policy considerations which give it life.” The relation to the proceeding “thus required is not a technical legal relevancy, such as would, necessarily, justify insertion of the matter in a pleading or its admission into evidence, but rather a general frame of reference and relationship to the subject matter of the action.” There is no doubt that a notice of Lis pendens satisfies this requirement of the privilege. Under our Lis pendens statute ... a notice of Lis pendens Can be filed in any action affecting real estate. This written notice shall contain the title of the action, the general object of the action , and the description of the real estate involved. The notice is in effect a republication of some of [the] essential information contained in the complaint fíled in the action. Thus, since all of the information contained in the notice of Lis pendens directly relates to the action, this requirement of the privilege is met.”
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.