Waller v. Weston’s Empirical Analysis
1899
Citation profile
2 district · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently March 2011 · most notably 9 Cal. 3d 773 - Pasadena Medi-Center Associates v. Superior Court (1973), Waymire v. California Trona Co. (1917)
2 district · 48 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 In re Organization & of the Bonds of the Central Irrigation District · Norton v. Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fé Railroad · People ex rel. Schwartz v. Temple · People v. Dodge · Young v. Fink
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Appellant’s motion was made, not upon the ground that the judgment had been taken against him through mistake, surprise, or his excusable neglect, but solely upon the ground that he had not been served with process at all. In making its conditional order quashing service of summons the court must have determined the fact to be in accordance with appellant’s contention. Such being the case, appellant was not a suitor before the court under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking relief from his own error or mischance, and becoming entitled to such relief only by compliance with such proper terms as the court might exact; he was not seeking to be permitted upon terms to come in and answer; he was before the court insisting that it had never obtained jurisdiction over him, and that a judgment against him, void for want of jurisdiction, should be set aside. His case is like those considered in Norton v. Atchison etc. R. R. Co., 97 Cal. 388 [ 30 Pac. 585 , 32 Pac. 452 , 33 Am. St. Rep. 198 ], and Mott Iron Works v. West Coast Plumbing Co., 113 Cal. 341 [ 45 Pac. 683 ], Knowledge—even actual knowledge of the suit against him'—was not the equivalent of legal notice and process, and did not make it compulsory upon him to appear in the action, or warrant the court in entering judgment against him for his failure so to do. (In re Central Irr. Dist., 117 Cal. 382 [ 49 Pac. 354 ].)””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ ... it is contemplated by our law that findings of fact shall be made only upon issues joined by the pleadings under section 590 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where the decision of the court following the findings is a judgment. Findings of fact and conclusions of law, therefore, had no proper place in this proceeding.””
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.