132 Cal. App. 2d 687 - Klinker v. Klinker’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently January 2013 · most notably Myers v. Olson (1984), 50 Cal. App. 3d 904 - Day v. Sharp (1975)
5 federal appellate · 45 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 19 Cal. 2d 807 - Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving Association · 23 Cal. 2d 719 - Maguire v. Hibernia Savings & Loan Society · 34 Cal. 2d 209 - Dillard v. McKnight · 27 Cal. 2d 840 - Lord v. Garland · 17 Cal. 2d 108 - Biewend v. Biewend
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The jurisdiction of a court of equity to enforce its decrees is coextensive with its jurisdiction to determine the rights of the parties, and it has power to enforce its decrees as a necessary incident to its jurisdiction. Except where the decree is self-executing, jurisdiction of the cause continues for this purpose, or leave may be expressly reserved to reinstate the cause for the purpose of enforcing the decree, or to make such further orders as may be necessary. (Dedrick v. California Whaling Co., 16 Cal.App.2d 284, 288 [ 60 P.2d 551 ] ; 18 Cal.Jur.2d 243, § 59; 30 C.J.S. 1014, § 616.) A court of equity can mold its decrees to suit the exigencies of the ease. (Connell v. Crawford, 92 Cal.App. 715, 719 [268 P.948].) Where equity has acquired jurisdiction for one purpose, it will retain that jurisdiction to the final adjustment of all differences between the parties arising from the causes of action alleged. (Pailhe v. Pailhe, 113 Cal.App.2d 53, 64-65 [ 247 P.2d 838 ] ; First Nat. T. & S. Bank v. Cerveny, 93 Cal.App.2d 255, 258-259 [ 208 P.2d 1018 ] ; Murphy v. Sheftel, 121 Cal.App. 533, 541 [ 9 P.2d 568 ] ; Vallera v. Vallera, 64 Cal.App.2d 266, 270-271 [ 148 P.2d 694 ] ; McAuliff v. McFadden, 42 Cal.App. 505, 512 [ 183 P. 870 ].) ””
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.