23 Cal. 2d 146 - Emde v. San Joaquin County Central Labor Council’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 4 district · 115 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 161 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably 48 Cal. 3d 711 - Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989), 17 Cal. 3d 596 - Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1976)
32 federal appellate · 4 district · 115 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 Schneiderman v. United States · American Federation of Labor v. Swing · Bakery & Pastry Drivers & Helpers Local 802 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Wohl · Milk Wagon Drivers' Union Local No 753 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs Stablemen and Helpers of America v. Lake Valley Farm Products · Davis v. Hearst
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 161 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“to hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, or ... cause[ ] him to be shunned or avoided or ... [have] a tendency to injure him in his occupation, it was obvious that the notice [wa]s not libelous per se "].) Indeed, the point is made in a case Bartholomew herself cites to us as authority. In that case, the plaintiff claimed that he had been defamed because of a statement that his telephone service had been disconnected due to nonpayment. The court rejected the contention, noting that "[t]here is no implication that plaintiffs failed to pay their obligations from dishonest motives or from a desire to defraud their creditor. Absent some allegation that plaintiffs were engaged in a vocation where credit is an important asset and necessary for the proper conduct of their business, the instant communication in a legal sense would not expose plaintiffs to public contempt or ridicule, not tend to degrade them in society.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is generally agreed that it is not necessary to prove the literal truth of an allegedly libelous accusation in every detail, so long as the imputation is substantially true so as to justify the ‘gist’ or ‘sting’ of the remark. (Heame v. DeYoung, 119 Cal. 670 [ 52 P. 150, 499 ]; Kurata v. Los Angeles News Pub. Co., 4 Cal.App.2d 224, 227 [ 40 P.2d 520 ]; Mortensen v. Los Angeles Examiner, 112 Cal.App. 194, 203 [ 296 P. 927 ]; Skrocki v. Stahl, 14 Cal.App. 1, 5 [ 110 P. 957 ]; 3 Rest., Torts, sec. 582, comment e; Prosser on Torts, sec. 95, pp. 855, 856.)””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Although the publicizing of the facts of a labor dispute in a peaceful manner is within the liberty of a free discussion guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a party to the controversy has no absolute privilege to discuss such matters so as to avoid civil responsibility for injury to another caused by a malicious and false statement made in the course of the differences between them.””
2 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.