121 Cal. App. 533 - Murphy v. Sheftel’s Empirical Analysis
1932
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably 27 Cal. 2d 131 - Sears v. Rule (1945), 12 Cal. 3d 374 - Pollard v. Saxe & Yolles Development Co. (1974)
3 federal appellate · 35 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 Kirk v. Culley · Bancroft v. Woodward · Connell v. Higgins · Thomas Haverty Co. v. Jones · Swan v. Talbot
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““is a rule of substantive law or of administration which has been found convenient or necessary to apply in the trial of cases; and it has been held not to be available for the purpose of supplying evidence of a fact material to the controversy nor to prevail against the real truth as to any particular situation, except as regards punishment for a criminal offense or responsibility for actual damage for the violation of private rights.””
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.