Robin v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently August 2009
17 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 23 Cal. 2d 600 - Loper v. Morrison · Tillson v. Peters · Egan v. Bishop · 78 Cal. App. 2d 870 - Thompson v. MacHado · 99 Cal. App. 347 - Bailey v. Hoffman
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘The law does not prescribe any standard of bookkeeping practice which all must follow, regardless of the nature of the business of which the record is kept. We think it makes no difference whether the account is kept in one book or several so long as they are permanent records, and constitute a system of bookkeeping as distinguished from mere private memoranda.’ ” Robin v. Smith, 132 Cal. App. 2d 288 , 282 P. 2d 135, 137 (D. Ct. App. 1955).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mahoney v. Minsky
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.