Hoffman v. May’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on 50 Cal. 3d 1012 - Bay Development, Ltd. v. Superior Court · Mccabe v. General Foods Corp. · Decker v. Advantage Fund Ltd. · 164 Cal. App. 3d 1227 - Bear Creek Planning Committee v. Title Insurance & Trust Co. · United Computer Systems, Inc. v. AT & T Corp.
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Hoffman’s assertion that May can nonetheless be held liable for her ‘wrongful acts’ pursuant to California Civil Code section 2343(3) does not save his claim. Although an agent may be held liable for his own ‘wrongful acts’ under section 2343(3), that statute ‘does not render an agent liable to third parties for the failure to perform duties owed to his principal.’ Hoffman’s claim fails because he premises May’s alleged liability on that very theory, asserting that she failed to apprise Lions Gate of the sums owed to Jonesfilm. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the district court properly [denied the motion to remand] [and] dismissed the amended complaint against May.”
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.