Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 27 CALAPP3D 152 - Ritter v. Technicolor Corp.

Ritter v. Technicolor Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
5
states following
May 2009
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently May 2009 · most notably 39 Cal. 3d 290 - Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985), 26 Cal. 3d 744 - People Ex Rel. Department of Transportation v. Superior Court (1980)

3 federal appellate · 25 state decisions

1501972198019902000decided

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.

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

  1. “one or more of a number of tortfeasors claimed to be liable for the same tort.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that defendants Filmland Corp. and two individuals who dominated it made knowingly false representations to plaintiffs to induce them to enter into contracts with Filmland for distribution of films to be made or processed by co-defendants Technicolor Corporation and Eastman Kodak Company. Filmland and the individuals are alleged to have been the agents of Technicolor and Eastman. After the action was filed, and before any trial, plaintiffs filed a document headed `dismissal with prejudice as to defendants Filmland Corp., Thomas Laber and Joseph Boughlosky only.' It recited: `The above-entitled action has been fully and finally settled and compromised and is hereby dismissed with prejudice as to defendants Filmland Corp., ... Boughlosky and ... Laber only, said dismissal to operate as a retraxit.' Defendant principals moved to dismiss the action as to them and the motion was granted. Plaintiffs appealed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “(a) The pro rata share of each tortfeasor judgment debtor shall be determined by dividing the entire judgment equally among all of them. "(b) Where one or more persons are held liable solely for the tort of one of them or of another, as in the case of the liability of a master for the tort of his servant, they shall contribute a single pro rata share, as to which there may be indemnity between them.”
    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.