161 Cal. App. 3d 284 - Bosley Medical Group v. Abramson’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably 44 Cal. 4th 937 - Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008), 6 Cal. 4th 409 - Howard v. Babcock (1993)
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 31 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 28 Cal. 3d 692 - California Teachers Ass'n v. San Diego Community College District · 13 Cal. 3d 149 - Morse v. Municipal Court · 119 Cal. App. 3d 417 - Southland Mechanical Constructors Corp. v. Nixen · Herbert Hawkins Realtors, Inc. v. Milheiser · New Method Laundry Co. v. MacCann
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.
“[T]he so-called rule of reasonableness was rejected by this state in 1872.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. 1997-1 Trade Cases P 71,831, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4192, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7070 General Commercial Packaging, Inc. v. Tps Package Engineering, Inc., an Arizona Corporation William Teags, General Commercial Packaging, Inc. v. Tps Package Engineering, Inc., an Arizona Corporation William Teags · 1997-1 v. Dar General Commercial Packaging Inc“The purpose of the 1945 amendment to section 16601 [previously § 1674] is contained in a letter from sponsoring Senator Quinn and a memorandum prepared for the committee. ... The memorandum points out that the court’s interpretation in Merchants’ Ad-Sign Co. v. Sterling, supra, 124 Cal. 429 , 57 P. 468 , was very technical, and was based on the fact that when the predecessor sections to Business and Professions Code sections 16600, 16601 and 16602 were enacted, “the small trading corporation was practically unknown and partnership was the vogue ...””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Any partner may, upon or in anticipation of a dissolution of the partnership, agree that he will not carry on a similar business within a specified county or counties, city or cities, or a part thereof, where the partnership business has been transacted, so long as any other member of the partnership, or any person deriving title to the business or its goodwill from any such other member of the partnership, carries on a like business therein.”
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.