Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 111 Cal. App. 538 - Walker v. Van Valkenburgh

111 Cal. App. 538 - Walker v. Van Valkenburgh’s Empirical Analysis

1931

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
February 1961
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Chase v. Trout · Baird v. Monroe · In Re East Bay Etc. Water Bonds of 1925 · Wilcox v. Engebretsen · Rutledge v. City of Eureka

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

  1. ““ ‘This is a most comprehensive curative provision. It is more than a curative act. A curative act is retrospective. Here the same statute which prescribes certain requirements provides that failure to comply with such requirements shall not avoid the assessment. It is competent to provide in the law itself that a disregard of the provisions not essential to confer jurisdiction on the council to order the work may in turn be disregarded.’ ””
    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.