Rookard v. Mexicoach’s Empirical Analysis
680 F.2d 1257 · 1982
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Eastern Trading Co. v. Refco, Inc. (2000), 172 Cal. App. 3d 83 - McCollum v. Friendly Hills Travel Center (1985)
6 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 2107
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Rodriguez v. New York · 17 Cal. 3d 425 - Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California · Louisville Co v. Chatters Southern Ry Co · 2 Cal. 3d 19 - Acosta v. Southern California Rapid Transit District
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.
“A travel agent is not an insurer, nor can he be reasonably expected to divine and forewarn of an innumerable litany of tragedies and dangers inherent in foreign travel. Nonetheless, it does not follow that because a travel agent cannot possibly presage all dangers, he should be excused entirely from his fiduciary duties toward his principal to warn of those dangers of which he is aware, or should be aware in the exercise of due care.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Unless otherwise agreed, an agent is subject to a duty to use reasonable efforts to give his principal information which is relevant to affairs entrusted to him and which, as the agent has notice, the principal would desire to have and which can be communi cated without violating a superior duty to a third person.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.