Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 128 Cal. 193 - Brown v. Curtis

Brown v. Curtis’s Empirical Analysis

1900

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
January 1954
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 1954

7 state decisions

30190019101920193019401950decided

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 Read v. Buffum · Bank of Shasta v. Boyd · Ford v. Bushard · California Steam Navigation Co. v. Wright · People v. Comedo

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

  1. ““Respondent is correct in stating that the reason for requiring proof of the assignment is to protect the defend ant from any claim of the assignor, but it is not true, as claimed, that ‘when the assignor takes the stand for the plaintiff and . . . the defendant admits a demand from the assignee, and notice from the assignor that he has assigned the claim to plaintiff, certainly the proof is sufficient to show an assignment.’ Brown may not have had any assignment when he made the demand. Linville [the alleged assignor] may not have in fact assigned his claim when he wrote he had done so. It was incumbent upon Brown to establish his right to sue, and this necessitated proof of the assignment by which alone he had any such right. It was as necessary for Brown to prove this fact as it was to prove the indebtedness.””
    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.