Reed v. King’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably 161 Cal. App. 4th 1275 - Salma v. Capon (2008), Strawn v. Canuso (1995)
4 federal appellate · 44 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 213 Cal. App. 2d 729 - Lingsch v. Savage · 133 Cal. App. 3d 171 - Barnhouse v. City of Pinole · 19 Cal. App. 428 - Bacon v. Soule · Colton v. Stanford · 61 Cal. App. 3d 944 - South Bay Irrigation District v. California-American Water Co.
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t is now settled in California that where the seller knows of facts materially affecting the value or desirability of the property ... and also knows that such facts are not known to, or within the reach of the diligent attention and observation of the buyer, the seller is under a duty to disclose them to the buyer. [Citations.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Concealment is a term of art which includes mere nondisclosure when a party has a duty to disclose. [Citations.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[The buyer] alleges the fact of the murders has a quantifiable effect on the market value of the premises. We cannot say this allegation is inherently wrong and, in the pleading posture of the case, we assume it to be true. If information known or accessible only to the seller has a significant and measure-able effect on market value and, as is alleged here, the seller is aware of this effect, we see no principled basis for making the duty to disclose turn upon the character of the information. Physical usefulness is not and never has been the sole criterion of valuation. Stamp collections and gold speculation would be insane activities if utilitarian considerations were the sole measure of value. Reputation and history can have a significant effect on the value of realty. “George Washington slept here” is worth something, however physically inconsequential that consideration may be. Ill-repute or “bad will” conversely may depress the value of 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.