D'Amico v. Riedel’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently January 1989 · most notably 10 Cal. 3d 616 - Green v. Superior Court (1974), Fragomeno v. Insurance Co. of the West (1989)
30 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
Relies on 112 Cal. App. 26 - Servais v. Klein · 54 Cal. App. 307 - Harris v. Bissell · 60 Cal. App. 2d 689 - Heller v. Melliday · 64 Cal. App. 193 - Smith v. Whyers · 27 Cal. App. 43 - William Wilson Co. v. Trainor
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is the general rule that neither a counterclaim nor cross-complaint is permissible in an action in unlawful detainer. The reason for the rule is that since the action is a summary proceeding designed especially for the purpose of a speedy means of recovering possession of real property, tenants withholding the premises in violation of the covenants of their lease cannot through means of a cross-complaint or counterclaim frustrate the extraordinary remedy provided by the statute.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Defendants’ assertion that they should have been permitted to set up the fraud as a defense to the claim for rent and attorney’s fees provided for in the lease is without merit. An unlawful detainer action is not upon contract but for recovery of possession of the premises and incidentally for the damages occasioned by the unlawful detainer. The court may, pursuant to section 1174 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assess damages and find the amount of any rent due. Ordinarily the agreed rent is evidence of the rental value. (Harris v. Bissell, 54 Cal.App. 307, 312 [ 202 P. 453 ].) ””
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.