Holly v. Heiskell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Appellant contends that the judgment must be reversed because there is no averment in the complaint that respondent was the owner or entitled to the possession of the property sued for at the time the action was brought; and, under the authorities, the contention must be sustained. In a suit to recover personal property, the comxfiaint must show the ultimate fact that plaintiff was the owner or entitled to possession at the time of the commencement of the action; and it is not sufficient to merely aver that he was the owner or entitled to possession at some period prior to that time. It was so expressly held in Fredericks v. Tracy, 98 Cal. 658 , 33 Pac. 750 , Affierbach v. McGovern, 79 Cal. 269 , 21 Pac. 837 , and Masterson v. Clark (Cal.) 41 Pac. 796 ; and the two first-named cases were referred to approvingly in the still more recent case of Williams v. Ashe, 111 Cal. 180 , 43 Pac. 595 . Counsel for respondent seek to show us a distinction between those cases and the case at bar, but we are not able to see it. In Affierbach v. McGovern, supra, there was no demurrer to the complaint. In the case at bar the only averment of the respondent’s ownership or right of possession is ‘that on the 22d day of April, 1895, plaintiff was the owner and entitled to the possession of the following described personal property, to wit.’ And the action was not commenced until after the said 22d day of April. Under the authorities above cited, the complaint does not state facts sufficient to c”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lettelier v. Mann