Campbell v. Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University’s Empirical Analysis
817 F.2d 499 · 1987
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably 44 Cal. 4th 937 - Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008), Acequia Inc. v. Clinton (1994)
29 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 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 17 U.S.C. § 106 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 301 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Smith v. Harmsen · Chlorine Institute, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Administration · McLinn F/v Fjord Johnson F/v Supersonic Churchill v. F/v Fjord F/v Supersonic F/v Supersonic · Gary Aircraft Corp. v. United States · Darring v. Kincheloe
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Even though the California Legislature rejected the common-law rule that 'reasonable' restraints of trade are generally enforceable, it did not make all restrictions unenforceable.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Great Frame Up Systems, Inc. v. Jazayeri Enterprises, Inc. · 1997-1 Trade Cases P 71,831, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4192, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7070 General Commercial Packaging, Inc. v. Tps Package Engineering, Inc., an Arizona Corporation William Teags, General Commercial Packaging, Inc. v. Tps Package Engineering, Inc., an Arizona Corporation William Teags“[w]hen issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, " there was no such consent here. Sahni does not contend that Patelco expressly consented to try the statute of limitations issue. And, "[w]hile it is true that a party's failure to object to evidence regarding an unpleaded issue may be evidence of implied consent to a trial of the issue, it must appear that the party understood the evidence was introduced to prove the unpleaded issue.”
3 later decisions 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.