Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 105 CALAPP2D 373 - Sipe v. McKenna

Sipe v. McKenna’s Empirical Analysis

1951

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
February 1989
most recently cited

10 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 88 Cal. App. 2d 1001 - Sipe v. McKenna · Seidell v. Tuxedo Land Co. · 90 Cal. App. 625 - Tetenman v. Melekov · Barry v. All Persons Claiming, Etc.

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

  1. ““. . . it is obvious that the present appeal is unjustified, yexatious and frivolous and was taken solely for the purpose of delaying and harassing plaintiff. This appeal has not only caused plaintiff an unnecessary expense but has consumed the time of this court which might have been spent in determining meritorious cases. Such appeals apparently can be discouraged only by the imposition of a penalty on the offender as authorized by section 957 of the Code of Civil Procedure. [Citing cases.]””
    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.