9 Cal. 3d 1 - Tyrone v. Kelley’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 151 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 182 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably 175 Cal. App. 3d 1 - California Shoppers, Inc. v. Royal Globe Insurance Co. (1985), 39 Cal. 3d 18 - Tenzer v. Superscope, Inc. (1985)
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 151 state decisions — followed in 11 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 3 Cal. 2d 427 - Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co. · 8 Cal. 3d 247 - Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors · 25 Cal. 2d 520 - Teel v. Gaskill · 68 Cal. 2d 662 - Batson v. Strehlow · 68 Cal. 2d 590 - Fazzi v. Peters
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 182 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he distinction between the finder and the broker frequently turns upon whether the intermediary has been invested with authority or duties beyond merely bringing the parties together, usually the authority to participate in negotiations.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“To protect ... owners of property, as well as the general public ... it is necessary to subject the advance fee business to regulation and to limit the persons or entities who engage in the advance fee business to those of proven honesty and integrity, and to establish a fiduciary relationship between the promoters and the owners by requiring that they be licensed as real estate or business opportunity brokers and salesmen, and to require them to account to their principals for the expenditure of the funds entrusted to them....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Although appellate courts are authorized to make findings of fact on appeal by Code of Civil Procedure section 909 and rule 23 of the California Rules of Court, the authority should be exercised sparingly. ( De Angeles v. Roos Bros., Inc. [(1966)] 244 Cal.App.2d 434, 443 [ 52 Cal. Rptr. 783 ].) Absent exceptional circumstances, no such findings should be made. ( Green v. American Cos. Co. (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 270, 273 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 528 ].)”
1 later decision 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.