Coverstone v. Davies’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 205 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 231 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably 55 Cal. 2d 211 - Muskopf v. Corning Hospital District (1961), 45 Cal. 2d 755 - People v. Martin (1955)
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 205 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 24 Cal. 2d 81 - Lawless v. Calaway · 112 Cal. App. 285 - Melvin v. Reid · White v. Towers · 35 Cal. App. 2d 304 - Metter v. Los Angeles Examiner · Lashley v. Koerber
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 231 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ . . . open the courts to persons whose only relation to the asserted wrong is that they are related to the victim of the wrongdoer and were therefore brought unwillingly into the limelight. Every defamation, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution would then be an actionable invasion of the privacy of the relatives of the victim.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The gravamen of the tort is ordinarily the unwarranted publication by defendant of intimate details of plaintiff’s private life.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) The officer can testify to every element of the particular misdemeanor offense by referring to specific and articulable observable facts and circumstances occurring within the range of the officer’s senses (enhanced or aided, in any given case, by the use of technological devices permitted under the law) which, when taken together with rational inferences from those observable facts set forth all of the elements of the misdemeanor; (2) The officer observes all of the elements of the misdemeanor prior to the arrest; (3) The officer subjectively and reasonably believes that the misdemeanor took place in his or her presence; (4) A reasonable person in the same position of the officer and possessing the prior experience and specialized training of the officer would objectively believe that the offense was taking place in his or her presence; (5) The totality of the circumstances is such that an officer would be justified in making a complaint upon which a warrant might issue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Alonzo C.
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.