Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 120 Cal. App. 670 - Davis v. Perry

120 Cal. App. 670 - Davis v. Perry’s Empirical Analysis

1932

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
4
states following
January 2017
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably McGee v. Allen (1936), First National Bank v. Lynch (1937)

3 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

120193219401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Erkenbrecher v. Grant · Hoag v. Howard · Robinson v. Muir · Continental Securities & Investment Co. v. Rawson · 94 Cal. App. 223 - Iknoian v. Winter

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

  1. “The law is well settled that the lien of a judgment does not attach to a naked title but only to the judgment debtor's interest in the real estate; and if he has no interest, though possessing the naked title, then no lien attaches.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““In any event, the rule of law regarding a so-called ‘one man corporation’ or as sometimes called a ‘corporate alter ego’ is now definitely announced. The law is well settled that, in order to cast aside the legal fiction of a distinct corporate existence, it must appear that the corporation is the business conduit and alter ego of its stockholders, and that to recognize it as a separate entity would aid in the consummation of a wrong. In other words, not only must it appear that one man or two men own the stock and control the policies, but it must also be shown that there is such a unity of interest and ownership that the individuality of such corporation and such person or persons has ceased; and it must further appear from the facts that the observance of the fiction of separate existence would, under the circumstances, sanction a fraud or promote injustice. ’ ’”
    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.