Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 132 Cal. 224 - Schomberg v. Walker

Schomberg v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

1901

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
7
states following
May 1986
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 57 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently May 1986 · most notably 55 Cal. 2d 224 - Lipman v. Brisbane Elementary School District (1961), Brewer v. Second Baptist Church (1948)

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 57 state decisions

150190119101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Childers v. San Jose Mercury Printing & Publishing Co. · Tonini v. Cevasco · Bettner v. Holt · Edwards v. San Jose Printing & Publishing Society · Taylor v. Hearst

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

  1. ““The definition of libel in our code is taken from Field’s New York Civil Code (sec. 29), and is but a statement of the common-law rule as given in the cases there cited. (2 Kent’s Com. 17 [and other authorities].) The effect of these and other, cases is thus stated — almost in the language of the code — by Mr. Odgers: ‘In cases of libel, any words will be presumed defamatory which expose the plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, which tend to injure him in his profession or trade, or to cause him to be shunned or avoided by his neighbors.’ ... “Where there is a statutory definition — it has been said by this court — -‘language which is fairly included in such definition is libelous per se. It is only when the libelous meaning of the publication is covert — not apparent- on the face of the language used — that averment and proof of special damage is required.’” (pp. 226, 227.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “whether the charge be directly made or merely implied, the publication — without averment, colloquium, or innuendo — will, in itself, constitute a libel.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““Language' which is fairly included in such definition is libelous per se.”.”
    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.