Wolfsen v. Hathaway’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 118 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 131 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably 13 Cal. 3d 43 - Bertero v. National General Corp. (1974), 11 Cal. 3d 452 - Silberg v. California Life Insurance (1974)
3 federal appellate · 118 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 Day v. Woodworth · Nichols v. Mitchell · Davis v. Hearst · 21 Cal. 2d 654 - Hicks v. Reis · Gudger v. Manton
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 131 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘An award of punitive damages may not be based upon mere speculation, but rather such penalty depends upon a definite showing of a “willingness to vex, harass, annoy, or injure. . . And this is necessarily so, for the law, having made full compensation for the act, can thereafter be concerned solely with the motive of the act. The wrongful act has been redressed by full compensation. The improper motive which actuated it may be punished by an award of exemplary damages.” ’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“It has been uniformly held that in the absence of either pleading or proof of a former judgment upon litigated issues, the defense of res judicata is thereby waived in the subsequent action. (15 Cal.Jur., § 233, p. 214; 50 C.J.S., § 822, p. 389; Domestic & Foreign Petroleum Co., Ltd. v. Long, 4 Cal.2d 547, 562 [ 51 P.2d 73 ]; Rideaux v. Torgrimson, 12 Cal.2d 633, 638 [ 86 P.2d 826 ]; Spitzer v. Superior Court, 74 Cal. App. 494, 498 [ 241 P. 270 ].) Nor can respondents avail themselves of the principle of judicial notice in support of their present plea of the former adjudication. It is the general rule that `the court will not take judicial notice of other actions, not even those pending or concluded in the same court.' [Citations.] The authority of a court to take judicial notice of its own records `is limited to proceedings in the same case.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Weil v. Barthel“the motive and willingness to vex, harass, annoy, or injure.”
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.