38 Cal. 2d 265 - Spaulding v. Cameron’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 6 district · 97 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 118 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably 53 Cal. 2d 567 - Brewer v. Simpson (1960), 39 Cal. 2d 858 - De Burgh v. De Burgh (1952)
9 federal appellate · 6 district · 97 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 Tupman v. Haberkern · Eachus v. Los Angeles Consolidated Electric Railway Co. · 27 Cal. 2d 104 - Phillips v. City of Pasadena · Williams v. Southern Pacific R.R. Co. · Kafka v. Bozio
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 118 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Since such conditions are ordinarily of indefinite duration and since the utility by making compensation is entitled to continue them, it is appropriate that only one action should be allowed to recover for all the damages inflicted. It would be unfair to the utility to subject it to successive suits and unfair to the injured party if he were not allowed to recover all of his probable damages at once.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““In early decisions of this court it was held that it should not be presumed that a nuisance would continue, and damages were not allowed for a decrease in market value caused by the existence of the nuisance but were limited to the actual physical injury suffered before the commencement of the action. [Citations.] The remedy for a continuing nuisance was either a suit for injunctive relief or successive actions for damages as new injuries occurred. Situations arose, however, where injunctive relief was not appropriate or where successive actions were undesirable either to the plaintiff or the defendant or both. Accordingly, it was recognized that some types of nuisances should be considered permanent, and in such cases recovery of past and anticipated future damages were allowed in one action. [Citations.] “The clearest case of a permanent nuisance or trespass is the one where the offending structure or condition is maintained as a necessary part of the operations of a public utility. Since such conditions are ordinarily of indefinite duration and since the utility by making compensation is entitled to continue them, it is appropriate that only one action should be allowed to recover for all the damages inflicted. It would be unfair to the utility to subject it to successive suits and unfair to the injured party if he were not allowed to recover all of his probable damages at once. [Citation.] “A more difficult problem is presented, however, if the defendant is not privilege”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“1 ‘ On retrial the trial court should determine whether or not the nuisance is in fact permanent. If it finds that it is, it should enter judgment for the decrease in market value. If it finds that it is not, it should grant injunctive relief and such additional damages as may be proved for the temporary decrease in the value of the use of the property while the nuisance continued. (See Bourdieu v. Seaboard Oil Corp., 48 Cal.App.2d 429, 437-438 [ 119 P.2d 973 ] ; Guttinger v. Calaveras Cement Co., 105 Cal.App.2d 382, 387 [ 233 P.2d 914 ] ; McCormick on Damages, § 127, pp. 503-504.) ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Pahl v. Ribero
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.