181 Cal. App. 3d 954 - Fox v. Pollack’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 71 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 137 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably 30 Cal. 4th 167 - Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc. (2003), Garcia v. RODEY, DICKASON, SLOAN (1988)
11 federal appellate · 71 state decisions — followed in 12 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 56 Cal. 2d 583 - Lucas v. Hamm · 6 Cal. 3d 176 - Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand · 49 Cal. 2d 647 - Biakanja v. Irving · 18 Cal. 3d 335 - Goodman v. Kennedy · Heyer v. Flaig
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 137 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) a misrepresentation of a past or existing material fact, (2) without reasonable grounds for believing it to be true, (3) with intent to induce another's reliance on the fact misrepresented, (4) ignorance of the truth and justifiable reliance thereon by the party to whom the misrepresentation was directed, and (5) damages.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The determination whether in a specific case the dfendant will be held liable to a third person not in privity is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors, among which are the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff, the foreseeability of harm to him, the 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, and the policy of preventing future harm.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“was an intended beneficiary of the attorney's services, or where it was reasonably foreseeable that negligent service or advice to or on behalf of the client could cause harm to others.”
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.