Karp v. Cooley’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently March 2010
6 federal appellate · 3 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 The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman · Nardis Sportswear v. Simmons · Natanson v. Kline · 154 Cal. App. 2d 560 - Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees · Bowles v. Bourdon
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. Defendant made the representation; 2. The representation was made concerning past or existing facts; 3. The representation was communicated to plaintiff; 4 . The past or existing facts referred to in (2) above were material to the transaction and susceptible of knowledge on the part of the defendant; 5 _ The representation was false at the time it was made; 6. The representation wa.s made with the intent to induce plaintiff to do or refrain from doing some act; 7. The representation was relied upon by plaintiff in that plaintiff believed it to be true and was induced to act or refrain from acting thereby and plaintiff would not have acted upon or refrained from acting in the absence of such representation; 8. Plaintiff suffered damage or injury as a result.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“.... The various rules on compelling an expert to testify, in the absence of statutory provision, are affected by such factors as the nature of the action or proceeding in which expert is called as a witness, by the nature or subject of the testimony, or by the status, relationship, or situation of the party by or against whom the testimony is sought. Thus, in some cases, the rule of compulsion has been limited to criminal prosecutions, and has been held not invoca-ble by or on behalf of a private litigant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harp v. Citty“... (T)hat Dr. DeBakey had not been employed to give any medical opinion; that he would not accept any employment in the case; that he had never examined Mr. Karp; that he had never seen Mr. Karp; that he would refuse to express any medical opinion concerning the treatment of Mr. Karp; that he would not express any medical opinion based upon hypothetical questions even if asked to do so ... etc.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harp v. Citty
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.