39 Cal. 3d 311 - Blank v. Kirwan’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 3 district · 2,371 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,505 later decisions — most recently February 2020 · most notably 20 Cal. 4th 163 - Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999), 47 Cal. 3d 654 - Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988)
23 federal appellate · 3 district · 2,371 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002)
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Griffin v. Breckenridge · Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. · California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited · United Mine Workers v. Pennington
Cited together with 2 Cal. 4th 962 - Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital District · 51 Cal. 3d 120 - Moore v. Regents of University of California · 2 Cal. 3d 557 - Denham v. Superior Court · 25 Cal. 4th 412 - McCall v. PacifiCare of California, Inc. · 20 Cal. 4th 163 - Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.
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 2,505 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The burden of proving such reasonable possibility is squarely on the plaintiff.”
50 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) an economic relationship between the plaintiff and some third person containing the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) knowledge by the defendant of the existence of the relationship; (3) intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) damages to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the defendant.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“`to expedite the administration of justice by compelling every person who prosecutes an action to prosecute it with promptness and diligence.' [Citation.]”
3 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.