128 Cal. App. 612 - Herrlein v. Tocchini’s Empirical Analysis
1933
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently September 1967
20 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 Mitau v. Roddan · Hess v. Country Club Park · 10 Cal. App. 746 - Standard Box Co. v. Mutual Biscuit Co. · 124 Cal. App. 263 - Tolle v. Struve · Duff v. Duff
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘ ‘ The first point relied on for reversal is that the trial court had no jurisdiction of the action. In support of this contention it is urged that declaratory relief, as provided for in Part 2, Title 14, Chapter 8, of the Code of Civil Procedure, is not applicable to disputed oral contracts and hence was not available to plaintiffs in the present action. The point is without merit. Appellants cite the case of Transport Oil Co. v. Bush, 114 Cal. App. 152 [ 1 Pac. (2d) 1060 ], as containing the proper construction of our declaratory relief statute. A careful examination of this case reveals that the language relied on by appellants is dicta. Moreover, in the later case of Tolle et al. v. Struve et al., 124 Cal. App. 263 [ 12 Pac. (2d) 61 ], the same question is elaborately considered and determined adversely to appellants’ position here. In that decision the court declares: ‘We do not feel called upon to follow appellant into the field of foreign legislation and decision on this point, nor to engage in an analysis of the provisions of our own declaratory relief statute, for the reason that we consider this question to be definitely foreclosed by the decision of our own Supreme Court in Hess v. Country Club Park, 213 Cal. 613 [ 2 Pac. (2d) 782 ]. In that case the plaintiff, who held certain real property under a deed containing certain restrictive provisions, sought and secured declaratory relief adjudging that by reason of the change in condition and character of the neighbor”
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.