Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 174 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 208 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably 142 Cal. App. 4th 1457 - McKell v. Washington Mut., Inc. (2006), Molski v. Gleich (2003)
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 174 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 39 Cal. 3d 311 - Blank v. Kirwan · 5 Cal. 3d 584 - Serrano v. Priest · 50 Cal. 3d 205 - Silberg v. Anderson · 47 Cal. 3d 863 - Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker · 18 Cal. 2d 146 - Jaffe v. Stone
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 208 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because a demurrer both tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint and involves the trial court's discretion, an appellate court employs two separate standards of review on appeal. [Citation.] ... Appellate courts first review the complaint de novo to determine whether or not the ... complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action under any legal theory, [citation], or in other words, to determine whether or not the trial court erroneously sustained the demurrer as a matter of law. [Citation.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“intentional infliction of emotional distress is an injury to the person”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“may properly take judicial notice of a party's earlier pleadings and positions as well as established facts from both the same case and other cases. [Citations.] The complaint should be read as containing the judicially noticeable facts, `even when the pleading contains an express allegation to the contrary.' [Citation.] A plaintiff may not avoid a demurrer by pleading facts or positions in an amended complaint that contradict the facts pleaded in the original complaint or by suppressing facts which prove the pleaded facts false. [Citation.]”
2 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.