Overgaard v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 31 state decisions

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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he courts have carved a special exception to the out-of-pocket-loss rule in cases where the principal’s action against the agent is based on the agent’s fraud on the principal. The measure of damages for the principal’s action against his or her agent who is in a fiduciary capacity is measured by the joint application of two principles: ‘For the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, the measure of damages ... is the amount which will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused thereby, whether it could have been anticipated or not.’ [Civ. Code, § 3333.] ‘One who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury or risk, is liable for any damage which he thereby suffers.’ [Civ. Code, § 1709.] [][] In an action by a principal against an agent arising from the agent’s fraud, these two principles have been interpreted as providing a measure of damages based on the broader ‘benefit-of-the-bargain’ rule because a fiduciary should be responsible to compensate his or her principal for the full amount of the loss caused by his or her breach of duty.” (2 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (3d ed. 2000) § 3.33, pp. 190-191, fns. omitted.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 110 Cal. App. 4th 229 - Fragale v. Faulkner · Roussos v. Michaelides (In Re Roussos)

2. ““Part of the difficulty in analysis of the law in this type of case arises out of a veritable gallimaufry of confusing rules gleaned from different types of actions. Some of these cases are based on contract, others on fraud (actual or constructive) and still others on unjust enrichment (disgorging of secret profits). The rules of these cases are then misinterpreted or applied to inappropriate fact situations .... We often look upon the out of pocket rule and the benefit of the bargain rule as being the sole antagonists on the battlefield of damages when at times neither is truly applicable. Consequently, it is easily understood how a trial judge could use an incorrect measure of damages.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Asleson v. West Branch Land Co.

3. “[S]ection 3333 does not set forth any benefit of the bargain rule. That section simply sets out the measure of damages long recognized in torts, namely, to compensate a plaintiff for a loss sustained rather than give him the benefit of any contract bargain (see Prosser, Law of Torts (4th ed.1971) § 110). The concept behind Civil Code section 3333 is to make the successful plaintiff whole.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 180 F. Supp. 2d 1021 - Southern Union Co. v. Southwest Gas Corp.