Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 17 CAL2D 722 - Fitzpatrick v. Underwood

Fitzpatrick v. Underwood’s Empirical Analysis

1941

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
2
states following
June 2022
most recently cited

33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably 73 Cal. App. 2d 284 - Kompf v. Morrison (1946), Marks v. Walter G. McCarty Corp. (1949)

33 state decisions

200194119501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Gin S. Chow v. City of Santa Barbara · Fleming v. Dolfin · Perry v. Quackenbush · Pico v. Cuyas · Smith v. Acker

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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “An agent may recover damages for the breach of an exclusive agency contract by the principal even though he has not produced a purchaser ready, willing and able to purchase, where the breach by the principal consists of preventing the agent from selling the property by selling it himself before the agency contract has expired”
    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.