Alvak Enterprises v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently July 2018
20 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 45 Cal. 2d 501 - Griffith Co. v. San Diego College for Women · 115 Cal. App. 2d 684 - Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission · 46 Cal. 2d 132 - Bailey v. County of Los Angeles · Goes v. Perry · 76 Cal. App. 2d 363 - Brock v. Fouchy
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ [11] On appeal from an order based on conflicting affidavits it will be presumed that the trial court found as true the facts most favorable to the prevailing party. (Huskey v. Berini, 135 Cal.App.2d 613, 619 [ 288 P.2d 43 ]; Maselli v. E. H. Appleby & Co., Inc., 117 Cal.App.2d 634, 648 [ 256 P.2d 618 ].) [12] ‘ “ ‘An appellate court will not disturb the implied findings of fact made by a trial court in support of an order, any more than it will interfere with express findings upon which a final judgment is predicated. When the evidence is conflicting, it will be presumed that the court found every fact necessary to support its order that the evidence would justify. So far as it has passed on the weight of evidence or the credibility of witnesses, its implied findings are conclusive. This rule is equally applicable whether the evidence is oral or documentary. [13] In the consideration of an order made on affidavits involving the decision of a question of fact, the appellate court is bound by the same rule as where oral testimony is presented for review. ’ ” ’ (Griffith Co. v. San Diego College for Women, 45 Cal.2d 501, 507 [ 289 P.2d 476 , 47 A.L.R.2d 1349 ]; Bailey v. County of Los Angeles, 46 Cal.2d 132, 137 [ 293 P.2d 449 ] ; Murray v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.2d 611, 619 [284 P.2d 1]; Byrnes v. Johnson, 138 Cal.App.2d 443, 446 [ 292 P.2d 1 ] ; Russell v. Landau, 127 Cal.App.2d 682, 690, 695 [ 274 P.2d 681 ]; In re Jost, 117 Cal.App.2d 379, 388 [ 256 P.2d 71 ].)”
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.