Julien v. Gossner’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently November 1982
13 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 Welch v. Alcott · Kern Sunset Oil Co. v. Good Roads Oil Co. · Bedford Investment Co. v. Folb · Lind v. Baker · Edwards v. Edwards
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.
““ ‘Every material allegation of the complaint, not controverted by the answer, must, for the purposes of the action, be taken as true . . .’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 462.) It was said in Burnett v. Stearns, 33 Cal. 468 : ‘The finding should be confined to the facts in issue. The province of the court in respect to facts is to determine but not to raise the issue.’ (See also Ortega v. Cordero, 88 Cal. 221 [ 26 P. 80 ].) ‘ Where a complaint in an action contains an allegation of fact which is distinctly and unqualifiedly admitted by the answer, there is no issue as to the fact. The allegation of fact being admitted it is conclusive. A finding against the admission is therefore outside the issues. ’ (White v. Douglass, 71 Cal. 115, 119 [ 11 P. 860 ].) It was declared in In the Matter of the Estate of Doyle, 73 Cal. 564, 570 [ 15 P. 125, 128 ] : ‘When a trial is had by the Court without a jury, a fact admitted by the pleadings should be treated as “found.” .. . If the court does find adversely to the admission, such finding should be disregarded in determining the question whether the proper conclusion of law was drawn from the facts found and admitted by the pleadings. ... In such case the facts alleged must be assumed to exist. Any finding adverse to the admitted facts drops from the record, and any legal conclusion which is not upheld by the admitted facts is erroneous.’ ” (See Julien v. Gossner, 103 Cal.App.2d 338, 343 [ 229 P.2d 786 ]; Hormey v. Horney, 118 Cal.App.2d 679, 683 [ ”
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.