Padula v. Padula’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently February 2003 · most notably Breen v. Phelps (1982), Ubysz v. DiPietro (1981)
5 federal appellate · 56 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 Grant v. Grant · McDonald v. Hartford Trust Co. · 2 Cal. 2d 590 - Park v. Powers · Cone v. Dunham · Raymond v. Bailey
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is not essential for a mortgagee to present a claim to the administrator of the estate of his mortgagor in order to enforce his interest in the mortgaged property, although his right to recover on the mortgage note is barred unless a claim has been presented.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The distinction between those two [types] of cases is clear. Those cases . . . which hold that the presentation of a claim is essential involve claims which are the personal obligation of the decedent. In those cases in which the cause of action is for the recovery of or the determination of interests in specific property and therefore is at least quasi in rem and not in personam, it is not an essential prerequisite that a claim be presented.”
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.