Doehla v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 2 district · 63 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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Prior to the amendment [of 1895] of Section 685 of the Code of Civil Procedure a judgment for the recovery of money could not be revived or enforced in any way after the expiration of five years from the time the judgment became final. . . . Section 685 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizing the judgment to ‘be enforced or carried into execution, after the lapse of five years from the date of its entry,’ was by its terms applicable only to cases ‘other than for the recovery of money’.” (Brackets and italics ours.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Padilla v. Vidal Garrastazú

2. ““ . . . It is a mere subsequent step in an action or special proceeding already commenced, which is governed entirely, so far as the time within which the same may be taken is concerned, by the provisions of the statute specially relating thereto. . . . ” Doehla v. Phillips, 151 Cal. 488 , 91 P. 330, 332 (1907).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Adams v. Alley

3. “As contended by appellant, the lower court had no power without notice to enter a new judgment against him, but we do not read the order made on March 10, 1905, as doing this.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wolfe v. Wolfe