Heer v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently March 2003
2 federal appellate · 12 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 35 Cal. 3d 390 - Olson v. Cory · McAnarney v. Newark Fire Insurance · Shaffer v. Honeywell, Inc. · Drier v. Perfection, Inc. · Beka v. Lithium Corporation of America
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In all cases when a party is allowed to recover costs the clerk shall also tax as part of the judgment the allowance of such party’s witnesses’, interpreters’, translators’, officers’, and printers’ fees, reasonable copying fees, fees for the service of process, filing fees and the necessary expense of taking depositions and procuring necessary evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Replacement cost, less physical depreciation, establishes the theoretical present cost of reproducing a particular building. It is not the invariable test of value because in a particular case other factors may overcome or qualify its influence upon sound opinion. Value, after all, is a matter of opinion. It cannot be denied that on occasion such considerations as location and obsolescence will reduce value below reproduction cost. ‘Actual’ cash value will not be arrived at by ignoring such realities.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A bona fide dispute as to the amount of damages should not bar the accrual of interest in all circumstances or a plaintiff's right to interest would depend merely upon the reasonableness of the defendant.... Mere difference of opinion as to the exact amount of damages was not sufficient to excuse [defendant] from compensating [plaintiff] for loss of the use of its money from July 1970 until judgment in 1975.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Honomichl v. Modlin
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.