55 Cal. App. 545 - Dean v. Powell Undertaking Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1921
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently June 1976 · most notably 17 Cal. 3d 42 - People Ex Rel. Busch v. Projection Room Theater (1976), Jack Lewis, Inc. v. Mayor of Baltimore (1933)
2 federal appellate · 25 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Rowland v. . Miller · Judson v. L.A. Suburban Gas Co. · Varney & Green v. Williams · Osborn v. City of Shreveport · Brown v. City of Los Angeles
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The appellant contends that it should not have been enjoined from conducting upon its own property a business in all respects lawful and in all respects operated with the highest degree of care and under the latest approved methods, solely and entirely because a few people living in the neighborhood believe that such business so conducted will hereafter cause them mental depression. In reply to this contention the respondents have stated they are entitled to the relief awarded and that their position is supported by authorities. They cite cases that arose in those jurisdictions where a statute or ordinance had been passed limiting the locations in which an undertaking establishment might be located. (City of St. Paul v. Kessler, 146 Minn. 124 [ 178 N. W. 171 ]; Meagher v. Kessler, 147 Minn. 182 [ 179 N. W. 732 ]; Brown v. City of Los Angeles, 183 Cal. 783 [ 192 Pac. 716 ].) As Fresno has not adopted an ordinance on that subject the cases are not helpful.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The trial court found that the value of the plaintiffs' property for residential purposes will be depreciated. Such findings, standing alone, and not supported by other findings showing that the defendant is maintaining, or is about to maintain, a nuisance, will not support the judgment. In many instances in populous neighborhoods the property of one person is depreciated by the near proximity of the property of another. Such burdens are ordinary incidents to residence and ownership in a city.”
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.