Lowe v. Ozmun’s Empirical Analysis
1902
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently March 1975 · most notably Bastanchury v. Times-Mirror Co. (1945), Central Bank v. Superior Court (1955)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 27 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 Lattin v. Gillette · Daggett v. Gray · Piller v. S. Pac. R.R. · McCusker v. Walker · Raynor v. Mintzer
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The obvious purpose of this provision was to include all actions for torts involving personal property, and we do not think that this purpose can be obscured by invoking strict definitions of the particular words used, or by contrasting them with other words which might have been used, or by nice distinctions between the common-law actions of replevin, detinue, and trover. In cases of unlawful taking or detaining personal property the wronged party has usually the option of either bringing an action for its specific recovery or an action to recover its value,— that is, an action which at common law would have been replevin or detinue or trover. Section 338 looks to the wrong,—to the thing itself,—and not to the particular kind of action which may be used to obtain the remedy. This view was expressly declared in Horton v. Jack, [ 4 Cal. Unrep. 758 ], which is to be found reported in 37 Pacific Reporter, page 652.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““There is no doubt that this provision includes the cause of action in the case at bar, unless the latter comes expressly within some other category of limitation. ‘Liability’ as used in the section includes responsibility for torts, and ‘is applicable to all actions at law, not specially mentioned in some portions of the statute'. (Piller v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co., 52 Cal. 42 . See, also, Raynor v. Mintzer, 72 Cal. [585] 590 [ 18 Pac. 82 ]; McCusker v. Walker, 77 Cal. [208] 212 [ 19 Pac. 382 ] ; Lattin v. Gillette, 95 Cal. 317 [ 30 Pac. 545 , 29 Am. St. Rep. 115 ].) ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Within three years: An action for taking, detaining, or injuring any goods, or chattels, including actions for the specific recovery of personal property.””
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.