Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 218 Cal. 425 - Abbott v. Cooper

Abbott v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis

1933

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
8
states following
November 2017
most recently cited

38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably 12 Cal. 3d 710 - Sullivan v. County of Los Angeles (1974), 70 Cal. 2d 97 - Stapleton v. Superior Court (1968)

38 state decisions

110193319401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Lammon v. Feusier · Johnson v. Williams' Admr. · Gomez v. Scanlan · Boaz v. Tate · State v. Llewellyn

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

  1. ““ ‘To hold the deputy and his sureties liable to the sheriff on his bond, it is not necessary that the deputy should be acting under color of some writ, but if he is acting under color of his office, and professing so to act, and inducing others interested to believe he is acting colore officii, he and his sureties will be bound by such acts. No other rule would be safe. Sureties are not needed on a sheriff’s bond, if they are only to be held when he acts legally. They vouch for his acts, and bind themselves to make good any damage he may cause to any one while acting under color of his office.’ ” (Emphasis added) 67 Ariz. at 149-150 , 192 P.2d at 247 .”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[W]here a person holding the office of sheriff or constable does acts colore officii , though he had no sufficient warrant to do the act, he is responsible to third persons in an action for a breach of official duty. Such a rule is declared to be supported by the weight of authority.”
    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.