96 Cal. App. 3d 440 - Powers v. Fox’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently December 2019
2 federal appellate · 9 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 45 Cal. 2d 872 - Sefton v. Sefton · Interinsurance Exchange v. Velji · 184 Cal. App. 2d 523 - Cottam v. City of Los Angeles · Dombalian v. Fox · Clark v. City of Los Angeles
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he obvious reason for the [spousal] exception . . . is that, where the victim and the fraudulent actor are married, the reliance is more likely based on the marital relationship with the trust therein involved than on the [real estate] license.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. CHANDRA VS. SCHULTE“theory of the statute setting up the [Real Estate Recovery Fund] is that a citizen has relied, to his damage, on the implied representation, inherent in the fact of licensure, that the licensee is honest and dependable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. CHANDRA VS. SCHULTE
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.