Robertson v. Dodson’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently June 1992
5 federal appellate · 14 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 Thompson v. Riggs · Chapman v. Jocelyn · 100 Cal. App. 606 - Latta v. Da Roza · Yndart v. Den · Doe v. Vallejo
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It should also be noted that the Legislature has expressly provided that ‘in the computation of interest upon any bond, note, or other instrument or agreement, interest shall not be compounded, nor shall the interest thereon be construed to bear interest unless an agreement to that effect is clearly expressed in. writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith.’ (Emphasis ours.) (Deering’s Gen. Laws (1937), Act 3757, § 2; Stats. 1919, p. lxxxiii.) “How the defendant expects the court to imply an agreement to pay compound interest in view of this statute, he does not explain.” (Robertson v. Dodson, 54 Cal.App.2d 661, 665 [ 129 P.2d 726 ].)”
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.