Ward v. Taggart’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 4 district · 414 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 455 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably 11 Cal. 4th 1 - Waller v. Truck Insurance Exchange, Inc. (1995), 22 Cal. 3d 388 - Hale v. Morgan (1978)
16 federal appellate · 4 district · 414 state decisions — followed in 17 states
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 46 Cal. 2d 715 - Desny v. Wilder · Bagdasarian v. Gragnon · Brewer v. Second Baptist Church · 38 Cal. 2d 330 - State Rubbish Collectors Ass'n v. Siliznoff · Panopulos v. Maderis
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 455 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`Courts award exemplary damages to discourage oppression, fraud, or malice by punishing the wrongdoer.... Such damages are appropriate in cases like the present one, where restitution would have little or no deterrent effect, for wrongdoers would run no risk of liability to their victims beyond that of returning what they wrongfully obtained....'"”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“The general rule confining the parties on appeal to the theory advanced below is based on the rationale that the opposing party should not be required to defend for the first time on appeal against a new theory that `contemplates a factual situation the consequences of which are open to controversy and were not put in issue or presented at the trial.' [Citation.]”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““(a) One defrauded in the purchase, sale or exchange of property is entitled to recover the difference between the actual value of that with which the defrauded person parted and the actual value of that which he received, together with any additional damage arising from the particular transaction, including any of the following: “(D................... “(2) An amount which would compensate the defrauded party for loss of use and enjoyment of the property to the extent that any such loss was proximately caused by the fraud. “(3)................... “(4) Where the defrauded party has been induced by reason of the fraud to purchase or otherwise acquire the property in question, an amount which will compensate him for any loss of profits or other gains which were reasonably anticipated and would have been earned by him from the use or sale of the property had it possessed the characteristics fraudulently attributed to it by the party committing the fraud, provided that lost profits from the use or sale of the property shall be recoverable only if and only to the extent that all of the following apply: “(i) The defrauded party acquired the property for the purpose of using or reselling it for a profit. “(ii) The defrauded party reasonably relied on the fraud in entering into the transaction and in anticipating profits from the subsequent use or sale of the property. “(in) Any loss of profits for which damages are sought under this paragraph have been proximately caused by the fraud”
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.