Anderson v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
1 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently December 2008
1 district · 9 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 67 Cal. App. 2d 842 - Ver Bryck v. Luby · Ludwig v. Montana Bank and Trust Co. · In re Young's Estate · Hatch v. Hatch · First Nat. Bank of Enid v. Headrick
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The mere fact that the relationship of attorney and client exists between two individuals does not ipso facto make all communications between them confidential.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hofmann v. Conder · Busch v. Doyle“`[T]he circumstances [must] indicate whether by implication the communication was of a sort intended to be confidential.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“* * * The plaintiff must do more than merely raise a suspicion. There must he some affirmative evidence to show that Richard did exercise a dominating influence over this mother and thus induced her to part with her property. Such affirmative evidence is almost totally lacking here.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Richmond v. Ballard
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.