271 Cal. App. 2d 39 - Smith v. Hatch’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently October 1992 · most notably 30 Cal. App. 3d 818 - Bradley v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (1973), 60 Cal. App. 3d 573 - Lerette v. Dean Witter Organization, Inc. (1976)
63 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 46 Cal. 2d 375 - Albertson v. Raboff · Flores v. Arroyo · 54 Cal. 2d 264 - Wilson v. Wilson · 245 Cal. App. 2d 80 - Thornton v. Rhoden · Locke v. Mitchell
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““§ 586. ATTORNEYS AT LAW. “An attorney at law is absolutely privileged to publish false and defamatory matter of another in communications preliminary to a proposed\ judicial proceeding, or in the institution of, or during the course and as a part of a judicial proceeding in which he participates as counsel, if it has some relation thereto. Comment: “a. The privilege stated in this Section is based upon a public policy of securing to attorneys as officers of the court the utmost freedom in their efforts to secure justice for their clients. Therefore the privilege is absolute. It protects the attorney from liability in an action for defamation irrespective of his purpose in publishing the defamatory matter, his belief in its truth or even his knowledge of its falsity. These matters are of importance only in determining the amenability of the attorney to the disciplinary power of the court of which he is an officer. The publication of defamatory matter by an attorney is protected not only when made in the institution of the proceedings or in the conduct of litigation before a judicial tribunal, but in conferences and other communications preliminary thereto. The institution of a judicial proceeding includes all pleadings and affidavits necessary to set the judicial machinery in mo tion. The conduct of the litigation includes the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, comments upon the evidence and arguments both oral and written upon the evidence, whether made to court”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘The privilege of section 47, subdivision 2 of the Civil Code [relating to privilege of publications made injudicial proceedings]... is based on the desire of the law to protect attorneys in their primary function—the representation of a client. ...”’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Norton v. Hines
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.