Pastene v. Pardini’s Empirical Analysis
1902
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently February 1970 · most notably Caminetti v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance (1943), 21 Cal. 2d 437 - Everts v. Matteson (1942)
3 federal appellate · 41 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 Melone v. Ruffino · De Baker v. Southern California Railway · Le Mesnager v. Hamilton · Indianapolis Piano Manufacturing Co. v. Caven · Winters v. Rush
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As to the second and third contentions, that the defendant was deprived of his defenses of lack of consideration and payment, it is sufficient to say that such defenses are affirmative defenses to be pleaded, and this (the) defendant did not do. He contented himself in his answer with a naked denial of the averments of the complaint, and this, as has been repeatedly held in this and in other code states, is not suffi-' eient to raise either of these issues. ‘ ... If there was no consideration, the defendant should have filed an answer setting up a want of it as a defense to the action.’ (Winters v. Bush, 34 Cal. 136 .) . . . Defendant has no just cause for complaint that he was excluded by the ruling of the court from offering evidence upon defenses which he had not raised.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The delivery was prima facie established by plaintiff's production and proffer of the note.”
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.