Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 106 CAL 9 - Bills v. Silver King Mining Co.

Bills v. Silver King Mining Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1895

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
3
states following
September 2006
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 2 district · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently September 2006 · most notably Thomas v. Pacific Beach Co. (1896), Lien Huynh v. Chase Manhattan Bank (2006)

6 federal appellate · 2 district · 21 state decisions

80189519001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Palmer v. Palmer · Wright v. Paine · Jones v. . Terre Haute Richmond R.R. Co. · Schroeder v. Jahns · Scott v. Central Railroad & Banking Co. of Georgia

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

  1. “no particular form of demand is necessary” and an inquiry regarding payment was sufficient to start the statute of limitations running). 4 . Appellant Gerardus Fernandez, a California resident and Chase depositor, was a U.S. serviceman stationed in South Vietnam at the time of the bank’s closure. Drawing inferences in his favor, we must assume he was a citizen of California when the cause of action accrued, so he benefits from the citizen of the state exception to Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 361. For the reasons expressed in Section III.B, his claims are, nevertheless, time-barred. 5 . In fact, the banks have spent considerable time and energy arguing erroneously that Vietnamese law cannot and should not apply. 6 . That rule provides: If the law of an organization of nations, a foreign nation or a state other than this state, or a public entity in a foreign nation or a state other than this state, is applicable and such law cannot be determined, the court may, as the ends of justice require, either: (a) Apply the law of this state if the court can do so consistently with the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this state; or (b) Dismiss the action without prejudice or, in the case of a reviewing court, remand the case to the trial court with directions to dismiss the action without prejudice. Cal. Evid.Code § 311. We can discern no reason that the "ends of justice”
    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.