Lukasik v. Lukasik’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 state decisions

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

1. ““ ‘The defendant concedes that, as a general rule, these propositions are true, but she contends on the other hand, that, as section 130 of the Civil Code provides that the court shall, in defaults in divorce causes, require proof of the facts alleged before granting the relief, the law thereby raises an issue of fact, and consequently provides for a trial. But the contrary of this was expressly held in the case of Foley v. Foley, 120 Cal. 33, 37 [ 52 P. 122 , 65 Am.St.Rep. 147 ].’ ” (Lukasik v. Lukasik, 108 Cal.App.2d 609, 613-614 [ 239 P.2d 497 ].)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 172 Cal. App. 2d 639 - Heathman v. Vant

2. “Such a defaulting appellant must confine his attack to the consideration of jurisdiction or of the sufficiency of the pleadings. ( Reed Orchard Co. v. Superior Court (1912), 19 Cal.App. 648 , 662 [ 128 P. 9 , 18]; *Page 831 Crackel v. Crackel (1911), 17 Cal.App. 600 [ 121 P. 295 ]; San Gabriel Valley Bank v. Lake View Town Co. (1906), 4 Cal.App. 630 , 633 [ 89 P. 360 ]; Lester v. Beer (1946), 74 Cal.App. 2 d Supp. 984, 987 [ 168 P.2d 998 ].)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 186 Cal. App. 2d 825 - MacKie v. MacKie