Langle v. Kurkul’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
14 district · 125 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 146 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably Ely v. Murphy (1988), Graff v. Beard (1993)
14 district · 125 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Rowland v. Christian · Dillon v. Legg · United States v. Butler · 5 Cal. 3d 153 - Vesely v. Sager · 15 Cal. 3d 40 - Weirum v. RKO General, Inc.
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 146 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The common law is changed by statute only if the statute overturns the common law in clear and unambiguous language, or if the statute is clearly inconsistent with the common law, or the statute attempts to cover the entire subject matter.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Lenoci v. Leonard · White v. Harris“[a] person who is injured in person, property or means of support by an intoxicated person, or in consequence of the intoxication of any person, shall have a right of action . . . against a person or persons, who, by selling or furnishing intoxicating liquor unlawfully, have caused in whole or in part such intoxication. If such intoxicating liquor was so sold or furnished to such person in a rented building, and the owner of such building . . . knew . . . that intoxicating liquor was sold ... by his tenant. . . contrary, to law, such owner may be joined as defendant ....”
2 later decisions 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.