Kee v. Becker’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently April 1990 · most notably 72 Cal. App. 3d 764 - Henderson v. Security Nat. Bank (1977), 219 Cal. App. 3d 1186 - 366-388 Geary Street, L.P. v. Superior Court (1990)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 27 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 109 Cal. App. 415 - McCaffey C. Co., Inc. v. Bank of America · Herron v. Hughes · 3 Cal. App. 387 - Lowe v. Ozmun · 107 Cal. App. 137 - Metheny v. Davis · Dodge v. Meyer
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`The foundation for the action of conversion rests neither in the knowledge nor the intent of the defendant. It rests upon the unwarranted interference by defendant with the dominion over the property of the plaintiff from which injury to the latter results. Therefore, neither good nor bad faith, neither care nor negligence, neither knowledge nor ignorance, are of the gist of the action. "The plaintiff's right of redress no longer depends upon his showing, in any way, that the defendant did the act in question from wrongful motives, or generally speaking, even intentionally; and hence the want of such motives, or of intention, is no defense. Nor, indeed, is negligence any necessary part of the case. Here, then, is a class of cases in which the tort consists in the breach of what may be called an absolute duty; the act itself (in some cases it must have caused damage) is unlawful and redressible as a tort.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““It is settled that conversion is any act of dominion wrongfully exerted over another’s personal property in denial of or inconsistent with his rights therein. * * * ” Gruber v. Pacific States Savings & Loan Co., 13 Cal.2d 144 , 88 P.2d 137, 139 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Shartzer v. Ulmer
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.