Massei v. Lettunich’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
2 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably 5 Cal. 4th 1082 - Mirkin v. Wasserman (1993), 267 Cal. App. 2d 231 - Oakes v. McCarthy Co. (1968)
2 district · 29 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 213 Cal. App. 2d 729 - Lingsch v. Savage · 45 Cal. App. 2d 64 - Rothstein v. Janss Investment Corp. · Simone v. McKee · Reuther v. Viall · Clauser v. Taylor
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The contention of Lettunich that he had no contact with appellants and that therefore it was impossible for him to be guilty of deceit toward them is without merit. ‘The law is well settled that “representations made to one person with intention that they will be repeated to another and acted upon by him and which are repeated and acted upon to his injury gives the person so acting the same right to relief as if the representations had been made to him directly.” ’ [Citations omitted.] No reason appears why this same rule should not be applicable to nondisclosures as well as misrepresentations. The jury could easily have found that Lettunich, in fading to disclose to the Trents that the lots had been filled, did so because he was fearful that the prospective purchasers would in turn learn that fact and be dissuaded. . . .” (p. 73.)”
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.