Kirsch v. Barnes’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 2013
1 federal appellate · 3 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 46 Cal. 2d 375 - Albertson v. Raboff · Gudger v. Manton · 31 Cal. 2d 202 - Johndrow v. Thomas · Kimbro v. Kimbro · Heidt v. Minor
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In adopting the Restatement rule, the California Supreme Court in Gudger v. Manton, 21 Cal.2d 537, 134 P.2d 217, set forth the following definition of slander to title: 39 `One who, without a privilege to do so, publishes matter which is untrue and disparaging to another's property in land, chattels or intangible things under such circumstances as would lead a reasonable man to foresee that the conduct of a third person as purchaser or lessee thereof might be determined thereby is liable for pecuniary loss resulting to the other from the impairment of vendibility thus caused.' * * * Dean Prosser sets forth five basic elements of the tort as the requirements that: 40 1. The falsehood must be communicated to a third person; 41 2. The publication and its disparaging innuendo must be plead and proven; 42 3. The falsity of the matter must be plead as part of the plaintiff's cause of action; 43 4. The publication must have played a material and substantial part in inducing others not to deal with plaintiff; and 44 5. The plaintiff must have suffered special damage as a result. 45 See Prosser on Torts, 2d Ed., 1955, p. 764 et seq. Aside from the question of privilege * * *, the gravamen of the action is the disparaging `innuendo' or `imputation' of matter that is without legal foundation and hence, false (Citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.