Bendix Corp. v. Adams’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably Alexander & Alexander Inc. v. B. Dixon Evander & Associates, Inc. (1994), Winkler v. V.G. Reed & Sons, Inc. (1994)
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 29 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 Adler, Barish, Daniels, Levin & Creskoff v. Epstein · Childress v. Abeles · 18 Cal. 2d 33 - Imperial Ice Co. v. Rossier · Felsen v. Sol Cafe Manufacturing Corp. · 51 Cal. App. 3d 590 - Weiss v. Marcus
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) the nature of the actor's conduct, (b) the actor’s motive, (c) the interests of the other with which the actor’s conduct interferes, (d) the interests sought to be advanced by the actor, (e) the social interests in protecting the freedom of action of the actor and the contractual interests of the other, (f) the proximity or remoteness of the actor’s conduct to the interference and (g) the relations between the parties.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"[W]hcre there is a direct financial interest in the contract, the essential question in determining if interference is justified is whether the person’s conduct is motivated by a desire to protect his [or her] economic interest, or whether it is motivated by spite, malice, or some other improper objective.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[M]ore important than the quantitative approach ... is the fact that there is no suggestion anywhere in the record that [the subsidiary] was created to “defeat public convenience, justify wrong, commit fraud, or defend crime.””
2 later decisions 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.