Kritzer v. Lancaster’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently November 2013
14 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 29 Cal. 2d 34 - Speegle v. Board of Fire Underwriters · 27 Cal. 2d 840 - Lord v. Garland · 3 Cal. App. 2d 454 - Brea v. McGlashan · 86 Cal. App. 2d 750 - Metzenbaum v. Metzenbaum · Whann v. Doell
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The first count of the complaint was, in reality, a cause of action for an accounting. Under our system of pleading a cause of action for accounting need only state facts showing the existence of the relationship which requires an accounting and the statement that some balance is due the plaintiff. ... A pleader is not required to state facts which are peculiarly within the knowledge of his opponent. Here, the complaint alleged sufficiently the employment, the manner of compensation, the performance of services showing some compensation to be due, and the fact that the correct amount could not be ascertained without an accounting. ’ ’”
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.