Olney v. Cavell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““This case seems to come squarely within the meaning of section 1911 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The same ques tion between the same parties being necessarily involved in the present case, the former adjudication was conclusive ‘not only as to matters actually decided in the former controversy but as to all matters belonging to the subject of the controversy which also might have been raised and decided. ’ (Minnis v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 204 Cal. 180, 183 [ 267 P. 538 ]; Estate of Bell, 153 Cal. 331 [ 95 P. 372 ]; Elm v. Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co., 217 Cal. 223 [ 17 P.2d 1003 ].) ‘It is not what was actually done but what might have been done that is concluded by a former judgment.’ (Henderson v. Miglietta, 206 Cal. 125, 127 [ 273 P. 581 ]).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 74 Cal. App. 2d 424 - Denio v. City of Huntington Beach