Burkett v. Griffith’s Empirical Analysis
1891
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 75 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably Gudger v. Manton (1943), 190 Cal. App. 3d 844 - Seeley v. Seymour (1987)
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 75 state decisions — followed in 21 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 Terwilliger v. . Wands · Mayor of Los Angeles v. Signoret · Kendall v. . Stone · Hastings v. Stetson · Gough v. Goldsmith
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The only special damage which the plaintiff has alleged is that Sketchley was informed of the statements and declarations made by the defendant, and withdrew his offer to purchase, and that the plaintiff thereby sustained damage. It is not alleged that the defendant ever made any statement or declaration to Sketchley, or in his presence, or that he directed or authorized any of his statements to be communicated to him; nor is it alleged that either of the persons to whom the defendant made such statements related them to Sketchley, or by whom or in what manner Sketchley ‘was informed’ of the statements. The only connection between the statements by the defendant and their reaching Sketchley is that the defendant made them for the purpose of circulating the rumor and conveying the impression that the plaintiff had violated the covenants and conditions of his leases. This, however, is too remote to render the defendant liable.” (Italics ours.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“‘‘Although the term ‘slander’ is more appropriate to the defamation of the character of an individual, yet the term ‘slander of title’ has by use become a recognized phrase .of the law; and an action therefor is permitted against one who falsely and maliciously disparages the title of another to property, whether real or personal, and thereby causes him some special pecuniary loss or damage.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““It was necessary for the plaintiff to set forth and describe in his complaint the property respecting which the defamatory statements had been made, as well as to aver his title thereto, so that it might be shown wherein the defendant had done him any injury.””
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.