Cooper v. James’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably Brandt v. County of Pennington (2013), Jacobson v. Leisinger (2008)
27 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 5 Cal. 3d 431 - Tresway Aero, Inc. v. Superior Court · Strassburg v. Citizens State Bank · State, Department of Revenue v. Thiewes · Schoenrock v. Tappe · Lamp v. First National Bank of Garretson
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e must determine whether the moving party demonstrated the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and showed entitlement to judgment on the merits as a matter of law. The evidence must be viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party and reasonable doubts should be resolved against the moving party. The nonmoving party, however, must present specific facts showing that a genuine, material issue for trial exists. Our task on appeal is to determine only whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied. If there exists any basis which supports the ruling of the trial court, affirmance of a summary judgment is proper.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“The burden of proof is upon the movant to show clearly that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. When faced with “ ‘a summary judgment motion where the defendant asserts the statute of limitations as a bar to the action and presumptively establishes the defense by showing the case was brought beyond the statutory period, the burden shifts to the [nonmoving party] to establish the existence of material facts in avoidance of the statute of limitations[.]’ ” It is well settled that “‘[s]ummary judgment is proper on statute of limitations issues only when application of the law is in question, and not when there are remaining issues of material fact.’ ” Generally, a statute of limitations question is left for the jury; however, deciding what constitutes accrual of a cause of action is a question of law and reviewed de novo.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) False representations or concealment of material facts must exist; (2) The party to whom it was made must have been without knowledge of the real facts; (3) The representations or concealment must have been made with the intention that it should be acted upon; and (4) The party to whom it was made must have relied thereon to his prejudice or injury.”
3 later decisions 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.