Mitchell v. Locurto’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently July 1987
12 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 Mattingly v. Pennie · Coulter v. Howard · Calmon v. Sarraille · Twogood v. Monnette · Gunn v. Bank of California
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Conceal means “To hide, secrete, or withhold from the knowledge of others. To withdraw from observation; to withhold from utterance or declaration; to cover or keep from sight. To hide or withdraw from observation, cover or keep from sight, or prevent discovery of.” Black’s Law Dictionary 261 (5th ed. 1979). In Mitchell v. Locurto, 79 Cal. App. 2d 507, 514 , 179 P.2d 848, 851-52 (1947), the court defined conceal as follows: “The word ‘conceal’ pertains to affirmative action likely to prevent or intended to prevent knowledge of a fact. (Restatement of the Law, Contracts, § 471, p. 891 et seq.; Restatement of the Law, Restitution, § 8, p. 32 et seq.; 8 Words and Phrases, Perm. Ed., 328-342.) It has reference to some advantage to the concealing party or a disadvantage to some interested party from whom the fact is withheld.””
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.