Tobin v. Casaus’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

51 state decisions

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

1. ““Appellant attempts to distinguish cases in which proceedings by a defaulting litigant were dismissed on the ground that in each the appellant had previously been adjudged in contempt, or sought the equitable intervention of the court while himself remaining in an inequitable posture. It is true that many reported cases fall into those categories. In Monterey Coal Co. v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.App. 207 [ 104 P. 585 ], a contemptuous party petitioned for a writ of mandate to change venue. In Weeks v. Superior Court, 187 Cal. 620 [ 203 P. 93 ], a writ of mandate was sought to compel entry of a final decree of divorce. In Paddon v. Superior Court, 65 Cal.App. 479 [ 224 P. 474 ], a writ of prohibition to prevent taking depositions was demanded. Knackstedt v. Superior Court, 79 Cal.App.2d 727 [ 180 P.2d 375 ], was a proceeding in mandamus for entry of a final decree of divorce. In Funfar v. Superior Court, 107 Cal.App. 488 [ 290 P. 626 ], there were petitions both for writs of prohibition and mandate. In Soderberg v. Soderberg, 63 Cal.App. 492 [ 219 P. 82 ], the party in default sought modification of a court order. Travis v. Travis, 89 Cal.App.2d 292 [ 200 P.2d 843 ], was an action to vacate a decree, but the court held the form of the proceeding did not alter the principle involved. “Appellant cites O’Neill v. Thomas Day Co., 152 Cal. 357 [ 92 P. 856 , 14 Ann. Cas. 970], as authority for the proposition that ‘before any punishment may be awarded, the party must be adjudged in co”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stone v. Bach

2. ““The right to an appeal must not be lightly forfeited, and where a doubt exists as to a litigant’s conduct being contumacious or wilful, an appellate court will tolerate temporarily the acts which were disruptive of the judicial process. We always prefer to resolve a cause on its merits; once the rights of the parties have been determined with finality, then the thwarted authority and offended dignity of the court may be assuaged with condign sanctions to the extent of the affront.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jeffers v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc.

3. ““The husband cannot, with any propriety, ask this court to hear his claims and thereafter render him assistance, while he stands in an attitude of complete contempt to any and all legal orders and processes of the courts of this state, which he seeks to avoid through the intervention of an appeal to this tribunal.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stewart v. Stewart