Angus v. Craven’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 59 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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The purpose of the section is evidently to afford a remedy similar in character to that of the old bill of peace, but extend- - ing it to cases which the latter remedy did not reach. (See- Curtis v. Sutter, 15 Cal. 259 .) Courts, however, in guarding the constitutional rights to a jury trial, have repeatedly held that where the suit should have been, and in substance is, an action for the recovery of the possession of land, the right of a defendant to a jury cannot be defeated by the mere device of bringing the action in an equitable form. And so it has been held that the right to a jury is not defeated, where, at the commencement of the action, the defendant, and not the plaintiff, was in the actual possession of the premises involved; and it has also been held that where the defendant had been for a long time in the actual possession, and the plaintiff had ousted him, the plaintiff, by first bringing his action to quiet title, could not, by such inversion of parties, avoid the defendant’s right to a jury, but that the action should be treated as substantially an action to recover possession. But this is as far as this court has gone in Donahue v. Meister, 88 Cal. 121 , [ 22 Am. St. Rep. 283 , 25 Pac. 1096 ]; Newman v. Duane, 89 Cal. 597 , [ 27 Pac. 66 ]; Gillespie v. Gouly, 120 Cal. 515 , [ 52 Pac. 816 ]; Moore v. Copp, 119 Cal. 434 , [ 51 Pac. 630 ]; and kindred cases. As was substantially said in Donahue v. Meister,- supra, the decision of the question whether, in an act”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. McNeil v. Morgan