4 Cal. 3d 130 - Bixby v. Pierno’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1,081 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,099 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably 11 Cal. 3d 28 - Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn. (1974), 6 Cal. 3d 628 - People v. Anderson (1972)
11 federal appellate · 1,081 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 Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Goldberg v. Kelly · Dandridge v. Williams · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation Same
Cited together with 11 Cal. 3d 28 - Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn. · Merrill v. Department of Motor Vehicles · Yakov v. Board of Medical Examiners · 20 Cal. 4th 805 - Fukuda v. City of Angels · Moran v. Board of Medical Examiners
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 1,099 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(c) Where it is claimed that the findings are not supported by the evidence, in cases in which the court is authorized by law to exercise its independent judgment on the evidence, abuse of discretion is established if the court determines that the findings are not supported by the weight of the evidence; and in all other cases abuse of discretion is established if the court determines that the findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole record.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage“In determining whether the right is fundamental the courts do not alone weigh the economic aspect of it, but the effect of it in human terms and the importance of it to the individual in the life situation. This approach finds its application in such an instance as the opportunity to continue the practice of one's trade or profession....”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“consider the nature of the right of the individual: whether it is a fundamental and basic one, which will suffer substantial interference by the action of the administrative agency, and, if it is such a fundamental right, whether it is possessed by, and vested in, the individual or merely sought by him. In the latter case, since the administrative agency must engage in the delicate task of determining whether the individual qualifies for the sought right, the courts have deferred to the administrative expertise of the agency. If, however, the right has been acquired by the individual, and if the right is fundamental, the courts have held the loss of it is sufficiently vital to the individual to compel a full and independent review. The abrogation of the right is too important to the individual to relegate it to exclusive administrative extinction.”
5 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.