Fuentes v. Tucker’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 142 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 155 later decisions — most recently August 2011 · most notably 35 Cal. 3d 197 - Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983), 19 Cal. 3d 59 - Krouse v. Graham (1977)
11 federal appellate · 142 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 Zibbell v. Southern Pacific Co. · Bond v. United R.R. of S.F. · Johnston v. Long · Sanderson v. Niemann · O'Meara v. Haiden
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 155 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he introduction of evidence of admitted facts is permissible in cases where the admission is ambiguous in form or limited in scope or where, during the trial of a case, a party seeks to deprive his opponent of the legitimate force and effect of material evidence by the bald admission of a probative fact. [Citations.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““It follows, therefore, if an issue has been removed from a case by an admission in the answer, that it is error to receive evidence which is material solely to the excluded matter. This, of course, does not mean that an admission of liability precludes a plaintiff from showing how an accident happened if such evidence is material to the issue of damages. In an action for personal injuries, where liability is admitted and the only issue to be tried is the amount of damage, the force of the impact and the surrounding circumstances may be relevant and material to indicate the extent of plaintiffs injuries. * * * Such evidence is admissible because it is relevant and material to an issue remaining in the case.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“at penalty phase improper].) It was error for the trial court to permit live testimony over defendant's offer to stipulate. The evidentiary matter at issue was technical and tangential, and a live witness was unnecessary to accord the prosecution”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.