127 Cal. App. 2d 644 - Erickson v. Boothe’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently March 2018
16 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 Gore v. Bingaman · 121 Cal. App. 2d 616 - Stockton Theatres, Inc. v. Palermo · Ward v. Sherman · 79 Cal. App. 2d 266 - Erickson v. Boothe · 31 Cal. App. 2d 114 - Ross v. McDougal
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The office of a supplemental complaint is to bring to the notice of the court and opposing party ‘facts material to the cases occurring after the former complaint . . .’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 464) which would affect the rights asserted and the judgment to be rendered. Also it must be in furtherance of, and consistent with, the original action. (Stephani v. Abbott, 137 Cal.App. 510, 516 [ 30 P.2d 1033 ].) ‘Such a right,' the court said in the early case of Gleason v. Gleason, 54 Cal. 135 , ‘can be exercised only with reference to matter which may be consistent with, and in aid of the case made by the original complaint, and which occurred between the time of filing the original complaint and the trial or judgment in the action.’ The motion to file such pleadings is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the trial court, and its ruling thereon will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a showing of a manifest abuse of that discretion. (Ross v. McDougal, 31 Cal.App.2d 114 [ 87 P.2d 709 ].)" (See also Gonzales v. Arbelbide, 155 Cal.App.2d 721, 726 [ 318 P.2d 746 ]; Young v. Matthew Turner Co., 168 Cal. 671, 675 [ 143 P. 1029 ]; Code Civ. Proc., § 464.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the fundamental purpose of the court in responding to the demand for restitution was to do equal and exact Justlce insofar as that could be done to [the rightful possessor] who, by judicial error, had been deprived of his property, his business and his business opportunity”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(allthough [the party in erroneous possession] was guilty of no wrongdoing when she retook the property, she knew that judgment was not final; she knew that if the appeal were successful she would be subject to an accounting and full restitution”
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.