Pipitone v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
12 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 25 Cal. 4th 826 - Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. · 24 Cal. 4th 317 - Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. · 38 Cal. 3d 18 - Mann v. Cracchiolo · 50 Cal. 4th 512 - Reid v. Google, Inc. · 17 Cal. 3d 399 - Landeros v. Flood
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There is no question that [appellant's] opening brief on appeal should have denoted which evidence in her moving papers had been excluded based on objections sustained by the trial court. Even so, each respondent has had the opportunity to address his objections raised and sustained below, and we consider the issue of the evidentiary rulings to be properly before this court as part and parcel of the appeals from the summary judgments.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We ... do not accept the argument that because [appellant] failed to expressly challenge the trial court's evidentiary rulings excluding portions of the declarations and the entirety of [her] expert report, we must defer to those rulings without considering whether the trial court's exclusion of potentially material evidence was proper.”
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.