22 Cal. 3d 718 - Stout v. Turney’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 3 district · 150 state decisions

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

1. ““[o]ne defrauded in the purchase ... of property is entitled to recover the difference between the actual value of that which the defrauded person parted and the actual value of that which he received, together with any additional damages arising from the transaction....”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. John Paul Mitchell Systems v. Eslami & John Paul Mitchell Systems · 44 Cal. 3d 1188 - Evangelatos v. Superior Court

2. “It was in the context of the foregoing course of judicial evolution that the 1971 Legislature addressed itself to the amendment of section 3343. Also apparent to the lawmakers was the fact that certain logical inconsistencies existed between the judicial application of the 1935 statute and that of other enactments dealing with the measure of damages for fraud. Thus, in fraud cases not involving the “purchase, sale or exchange of property” lost profits were regularly awarded under the general tort recovery statute, Civil Code section 3333 (see, e.g., Sutter v. General Petroleum Corp. (1946) 28 Cal.2d 525, 534 [ 170 P.2d 898 , 167 A.L.R. 271 ])... The Legislature’s response took the form of an extensive amendment to and expansion of that portion of the former section dealing with consequential or ‘additional’ damages... the section was amended to permit the recovery of lost profits as a component of ‘additional’ damage. (Subds.(a)(3) and (a)(4).) Care was taken, however, to emphasize that the above amendments were not to be interpreted as the adoption of a “benefit-of-the-bargain” standard, which would of course be applicable regardless of whether the subject property was income- or profit-producing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 242 F. Supp. 2d 720 - City Solutions, Inc. v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc.

3. “is concerned with satisfying the expectancy interest of the defrauded plaintiff by putting him in the position he would have enjoyed if the false representation relied upon had been true; it awards the difference in value between what the plaintiff actually received and what he was fraudulently led to believe he would receive.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nguyen v. Nissan N. Am., Inc.