21 Cal. 3d 268 - Garfinkle v. Superior Court’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
77 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably 7 Cal. 4th 1 - Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994), 30 Cal. 3d 721 - Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson (1982)
77 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
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 91
Relies on Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. · Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority · Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View · Shelley v. Kraemer · Marsh v. State of Alabama
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“After the trustee's deed has been recorded , the purchaser is entitled to bring an unlawful detainer action against the borrower-trustor or his or her successor to obtain possession of the property. [Citations.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We are also unpersuaded that the state encourages nonjudicial foreclosures by acknowledging the legal validity of the title transferred thereby. Mere recognition of the legal effect of the private arrangements of the lender and trustor is not sufficient to convert the acts of the lender or trustee into the acts of the state for Fourteenth Amendment purposes. As the court in Barrera v. Security Building & Investment Corporation, supra, 519 F.2d 1166, 1170 [(5th Cir.1975)], cogently stated: “Virtually all formal private arrangements assume, at some point, the supportive role of the state. To hold that the state, by recognizing the legal effect of those arrangements, converts them into state acts for constitutional purposes would effectively erase to a significant extent the constitutional line between private and state action and subject to judicial scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment virtually all private arrangements that purport to have binding legal effect.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dirks v. Cornwell“in interpreting the scope of the due process clause under the state Constitution, we are not bound by federal decisions analyzing the state action requirement under the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments....”
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.