Syler v. Katzer’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently January 1974
21 state decisions
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 Etchas v. Orena · 7 Cal. 2d 454 - United States Gypsum Co. v. Shaffer · 29 Cal. App. 382 - Merrill v. Kohlberg · Morehouse v. Morehouse · 1 Cal. App. 659 - Enscoe v. Fletcher
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘ ‘ The claim in this case noted the date of the agreement, the nature of the services performed and the estimated value of the property asked in payment therefor. In Syler v. Katzer, 12 Cal.2d 348, 350 [ 84 P.2d 137 , 119 A.L.R. 422 ], the court said: ‘The contention is then, that the claim was insufficient in form, ... it may be said that there is no necessity that a creditor’s claim be drafted with precision and completeness of a pleading. The only requirement is that it state such facts as will apprise the executor or administrator of the amount of the demand. (See Standiford v. Cantrell, 87 Cal.App. 736 [ 262 P. 800 ]; United States Gypsum Co. v. Shaffer, 7 Cal.2d 454 [ 60 P.2d 998 ].) The claim in the instant case clearly called to the attention of the executor the fact of the services, the period during which they were rendered (up to the time of death), and the amount demanded. If any uncertainty remained, it was incumbent upon the executor to call for clarification (Standiford v. Cantrell, supra). . . .’ ” (P. 44.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Mecum v. Ott · Shabrick v. Moore““. . . No demurrer was filed to the complaint on the ground relied upon herein, and the case was tried on other issues. The present contention appeared for the first time on motion for new trial. Under such circumstances, any formal defects in the creditor’s claim must be deemed waived by the trial on the merits.” (See, also, Tabata v. Murane, supra.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mecum v. Ott“The decision in this case sweeps aside rules long established ... [P. 352] It has uniformly been held that the claim filed against an estate measures the right to the claimant's recovery. In other words, the claimant may not recover upon a cause of action not stated in the claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Tabata v. Murane
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.