Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 92 CALAPP3D 61 - Bindrim v. Mitchell

Bindrim v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
December 2013
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 4 district · 25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2013 · most notably Geisler v. Petrocelli (1980), 37 Cal. 3d 244 - Reader's Digest Assn. v. Superior Court (1984)

12 federal appellate · 4 district · 25 state decisions

35019791980199020002010decided

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 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · St. Amant v. Thompson · Old Dominion Branch No. 496 v. Austin · Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn., Inc. v. Bresler · 17 Cal. 3d 596 - Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.

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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “cast [Masson] in a disparaging light since they portray his language and conduct as crude, aggressive, and unprofessional.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “imaginative explanation of an episode in that person's life about which no actual facts were known,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “prior to the paperback printing there were surrounding circumstances to suggest inaccuracy, such that at that point [the publisher] had a duty to investigate. . .. The jury could have inferred that at that point [the publisher] either had serious doubts, or should have had serious doubts, as to the possibility that plaintiff was defamed by [the novel] and that at that point [the publisher] had some duty to investigate.”
    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.