Barr v. Carroll’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently May 1988 · most notably Dubay v. Irish (1988), 2 Cal. 3d 575 - Grudt v. City of Los Angeles (1970)
26 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 20 Cal. 2d 713 - Wennerholm v. Stanford University School of Medicine · 17 Cal. 2d 13 - Klopstock v. Superior Court · Frost v. Witter · Krause v. Rarity · 110 Cal. App. 81 - Crawford v. Foster
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In determining this question it is well to bear in mind some of the general principles of law relating to amendments of complaints. “(a) The courts are very liberal in allowing amendments in order that, if possible, no litigant be deprived of his day in court because of mere technicalities of pleading. (See Frost v. Witter (1901), 132 Cal. 421, 424 [ 64 P. 705 , 84 Am. St.Rep. 53].) “(b) It is well settled that the commencement of •an action upon a given cause does not stop the running of the statute of limitations against a wholly different cause of action, and hence amendments attempting to set up such different cause of action should not be allowed. (Atkinson v. Amador & S. Canal. Co., 53 Cal. 102 ; Lambert v. McKenzie, 135 Cal. 100 [ 67 P. 6 ] ; Ridley v. Young, 64 Cal.App.2d 503 [ 149 P.2d 76 ]; McKnight v. Gilzean, 29 Cal.App.2d 218 [ 84 P.2d 213 ] ; Burnett v. Boucher, 108 Cal.App.2d 37 [ 238 P.2d 1 ].) On the other hand, proper amendments to the original complaint relate back to the date of the filing of the original complaint and are not barred by the statute of limitations, even though the amendments are made subsequent to the date upon which the statute would otherwise have run. (Frost v. Witter, supra, (1901) 132 Cal. 421, 427 ; Ginsberg v. Faraone (1932), 126 Cal.App. 337, 342 [ 14 P.2d 777 ] ; Kirman v. Borzage (1946), 75 Cal.App.2d 865, 871 [ 172 P.2d 90 ] ; Wennerholm v. Stanford, Univ. Sch. of Med. (1942), 20 Cal.2d 713, 717 [ 128 P.2d 522 , 141 A.L.R. 1358 ”
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.