Boland v. All Persons Etc.’s Empirical Analysis
1911
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently September 1967 · most notably 67 Cal. 2d 251 - Lynch v. Spilman (1967), Osmont v. All Persons, Etc. (1913)
25 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 Doak v. Bruson · Brownell v. Superior Court of Yolo Cty. · Gray v. Lawlor · 6 Cal. App. 629 - Thomas v. Superior Court, Etc. · Bogart v. Kiene
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In applications for relief under this clause of the section there is no presumption of neglect, as in cases where there has been personal service. The party is not required, in the first instance, to do more than show that he has not been personally served and that he has a good defense to the action on the merits which he could have presented had he *Page 600 been informed of its pendency. ( Gray v. Lawlor, 151 Cal. 354 [12 Ann. Cas. 990, 90 P. 691 ].) But his opponent may show, in opposition to the application, that the applicant had actual notice of the action in time to have entered an appearance and present the defense, and that the failure to do so was owing to his neglect or to his consent to the judgment. In that event a case arises for the exercise of the discretion of the court and it must determine whether or not the laches is of a character that should preclude the relief. ( Bogart v. Kiene, 85 Minn. 262 [ 88 N.W. 748 ]; Mueller v. McCulloch, 59 Minn. 409 [ 61 N.W. 544 ]; Keenan v. Daniells, 18 S.D. 102 [ 99 N.W. 853 ]; Blyth v. Swenson, 15 Utah, 352 [ 49 P. 1027 ]; Jordan v. Hutchinson, 39 Wn. 373 [ 81 P. 867 ].)”
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.