Allen v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 5 district · 70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably 54 Cal. 3d 868 - Christensen v. Superior Court (1991), 23 Cal. App. 4th 174 - Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (1994)
1 federal appellate · 5 district · 70 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Crisci v. Security Insurance · 2 Cal. 3d 493 - Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc. · 10 Cal. App. 3d 376 - Fletcher v. Western National Life Insurance · 21 Cal. 3d 497 - E. L. White, Inc. v. City of Huntington Beach · 11 Cal. 3d 908 - Schroeder v. Auto Driveaway 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A group of cases eliminating the physical manifestation requirement] has involved the negligent mishandling of corpses ... [because there is] ... an especial likelihood of genuine and serious mental distress, ... which serves as a guarantee that the claim is not spurious.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““A contract whereby a mortician agrees to prepare a body for burial is one in which it is reasonably foreseeable that breach may cause mental anguish to the decedent’s bereaved relations. ‘One who prepares a human body for burial and conducts a funeral usually deals with the living in their most difficult and delicate moments .... The exhibition of callousness or indifference, the offer of insult and indignity, can, of course, inflict no injury on the dead, but they can visit agony akin to torture on the living. So true is this that the chief asset of a mortician and the most conspicuous element of his advertisement is his consideration for the afflicted. A decent respect for their feelings is implied in every contract for his services.’ (Fitzsimmons v. Olinger Mortuary Ass’n. (1932) 91 Colo. 544 [ 17 P.2d 535, 536-537 ].)” In a similar vein, another court has stated: “The tenderest feelings of the human heart center around the remains of the dead. When the defendants contracted with plaintiff to inter the body of her deceased husband in a workmanlike manner they did so with the knowledge that she was the widow and would naturally and probably suffer mental anguish if they failed to fulfill their contractual obligation in the manner here charged.....(Lamm v. Shingleton (1949) 231 N.C. 10 [ 55 S.E.2d 810, 813-814 ]; Allen v. Jones, supra, 104 Cal.App.3d 207, 211-212 .)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“damages are recoverable... without physical injury for negligent mishandling of a corpse”
2 later decisions 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.