Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 42 Cal. 3d 223 - In Re Head

42 Cal. 3d 223 - In Re Head’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

111
cited by 111 later decisions
2
states following
July 2019
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 107 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 111 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably 52 Cal. 3d 1142 - Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991), 43 Cal. 3d 1281 - Maria P. v. Riles (1987)

4 federal appellate · 107 state decisions

3401986199020002010decided

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 Wolff v. McDonnell · Meachum v. Fano · Montanye v. Haymes · 11 Cal. 3d 1 - D'AMICO v. Board of Medical Examiners · 28 Cal. 3d 692 - California Teachers Ass'n v. San Diego Community College District

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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “How the party achieves the goal of enforcing the right in question is not determinative of the right to an award of attorney fees. . . . The impact of the litigation is.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[i]n attempting to ascertain legislative intent when construing a statute we presume that the Legislature did not intent absurd results. [Citation.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “frustrated by a restriction of the availability of attorney fee awards where the restriction is not clearly mandated by the language of the statute.”
    1 later decision 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.