125 Cal. App. 2d 697 - McNulty v. Copp’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently October 2010 · most notably 27 Cal. 4th 516 - Hess v. Ford Motor Co. (2002), 48 Cal. App. 4th 608 - Olsen v. Breeze, Inc. (1996)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 22 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 19 Cal. 2d 807 - Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving Association · 21 Cal. 2d 636 - Panos v. Great Western Packing Co. · Todhunter v. Smith · Wulfjen v. Dolton · Lamb v. Wahlenmaier
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““So far as the real property action here involved is concerned in its relation to the original action the doctrine of res judicata must apply and operate as a bar to that subsequent action. Respondent cannot treat the wrongful possession of appellants and the withholding of possession as two separate acts or as a violation of two primary rights. The original action sought to quiet title to the real property and for a writ of possession as well as for cancellation of the purported deed. Assuredly this is the type of equitable action wherein the court could and should dispose of all claims relating to this property in the one action.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““In the instant case, the one primary right involved was the right of the appellant to possession of the land and there was but one violation of that duty on the part of the respondent. Both actions were based on the same invasion of the same right, and under the well established rules with respect to the splitting of actions which prevails in this state the appellant should have presented his claim for damages in the prior action, and by failing to do so he must be held to have waived it.””
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.