Wright v. Best’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently December 2015 · most notably Continental Baking Co. v. Katz (1968), 182 Cal. App. 3d 82 - United States v. State Water Resources Control Board (1986)
1 federal appellate · 46 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 Winslow v. City of Vallejo · Gurnsey v. Northern California Power Co. · 17 Cal. 2d 23 - Elliott v. McCombs · Joerger v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. · Frost v. City of Los Angeles
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But the respondent asserts a right to pollute the creek from the entire Ruby Mine, relying upon the equitable doctrine of the ‘balancing of the conveniences.’ Under this doctrine, a court of equity may deny injunctive relief and relegate the plaintiff to his remedy at law, if the benefit resulting to him from the granting of the injunction will be slight as compared to the injury caused the defendant thereby. [Citations.] Despite a proper showing in other respects of a right to injunctive aid, if a plaintiff is merely seeking to protect a technical and unsubstantial right, and the issuance of the injunction will bring no actual advantage, it may be properly refused where to do otherwise would result in unusual hardship to the defendant or the public.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Oertel v. Copley“”... Despite a proper showing in other respects of a right to injunctive aid, if a plaintiff is merely seeking to protect a technical and unsubstantial right, and the issuance of the injunction will bring no actual advantage, it may be properly refused where to do otherwise would result in unusual hardship to the defendant or the public.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Protz v. Reynolds
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.