33 Cal. 4th 1140 - Reeves v. Hanlon’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 6 district · 63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 168 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably Diaz v. Gates (2005), Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005)
20 federal appellate · 6 district · 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 29 Cal. 4th 1134 - Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. · 19 Cal. 4th 26 - Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. · 50 Cal. 3d 1118 - Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co. · 11 Cal. 4th 376 - Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. · 29 Cal. 2d 34 - Speegle v. Board of Fire Underwriters
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 168 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the existence of a valid contract between the plaintiff and a third party; (2) the defendant's knowledge of that contract; (3) the defendant's intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; (4) actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; and (5) resulting damage.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) an economic relationship between the plaintiff and some third party, with the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the relationship; (3) the defendant's intentional acts designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) economic harm to the plaintiff proximately caused by the defendant's acts. [Citation.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]o recover for a defendant’s interference with an at-will employment relation, a plaintiff must plead and prove that the defendant engaged in an independently wrongful act — i.e., an act proscribed by some constitutional, statutory, regulatory, common law, or other determinable legal standard — that induced an at-will employee to leave the plaintiff.”
2 later decisions 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.