Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 117 CAL 305 - Hicks v. Drew

Hicks v. Drew’s Empirical Analysis

1897

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
6
states following
May 2012
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 62 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably 49 Cal. 4th 758 - Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc. (2010), 45 Cal. 2d 213 - Meehan v. Hopps (1955)

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 62 state decisions

1001897190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co. · Transportation Company v. Chicago · Eaton v. B. C. & M. R. R. · Conniff v. City of San Francisco · McLennan v. Ohmen

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

  1. ““While in this state all distinctions between common-law actions are abolished as relating to the procedure, yet it is plain that we are bound to consult the common law, and the classification of common-law actions, for the proper determination as to what the law-making power of this state had in mind when using the phrase, Trespass upon real property.’ It appears that the courts of England often experienced difficulty in determining whether trespass or case was the true remedy to be pursued. This same difficulty often arises in this state, when the statute of limitations is invoked. Put in the ease at bar, weighed and tested by the rules of the common law, the distinction between these two forms of common law actions is clearly apparent; and that this case upon its facts is one wherein it is sought to recover upon a liability not based upon an instrument of writing, and, therefore, barred in two years, we are satisfied. One of the best tests by which to distinguish trespass is found in the answer to the question, When was the damage done ? If the damage does not come directly from the act, but is simply an after result from the act, it is essentially consequential, and no trespass.””
    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.