Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 95 CALAPP2D 296 - Lenk v. Spezia

Lenk v. Spezia’s Empirical Analysis

1949

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
4
states following
March 2005
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently March 2005

13 state decisions

601949195019601970198019902000decided

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 23 Cal. App. 2d 680 - Miles v. A. Arena & Co. · S.A. Gerrard Co., Inc. v. Fricker · The Hammond Ranch Corporation v. Dodson · Lundberg v. Bolon · Davis v. Stulman

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

  1. ““If plaintiff’s bees procured the poisonous compound from which they died while they were trespassing on the fields of other owners of land, it appears that the plaintiff could not recover damages unless the poison was distributed wantonly, maliciously, or with the deliberate intent to injure or destroy the bees. There is no evidence in this case of such wanton or malicious conduct. Under such circumstances there was no duty on the defendants or the owners of the land to protect plaintiff’s trespassing bees from the danger of said poisonous compound.” 95 Cal. App. 2d at 302-03 , 213 P.2d at 51 (citations omitted).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““It is true that a defendant who is engaged in spraying or dusting fruit, vegetables or other products with the use of an airplane, or otherwise, by negligently spreading liquid or powder known to contain a dangerous proportion of arsenic or other poisons, in such a manner as to endanger the lives of bees, animals or property of another person in the immediate vicinity, may become liable for the damages resulting therefrom.””
    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.