Wilson v. Barry’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Plaintiffs urge that such action of the trial court in continuing the case beyond the five-year period brings the matter within the purview of such cases as Christin v. Superior Court [ 9 Cal.2d 526 , 71 P.2d 205 , 112 A.L.R. 1153 ], supra, wherein it is stated, 9 Cal.2d at page 530 , 71 P.2d at page 207 , that ‘despite the mandatory language of the statute, implied exceptions have been recognized where it was not possible to bring the cause to trial.’ However, as stated in Bank of America Nat. Trust & Savings Ass’n v. Moore & Harrah, 54 Cal.App.2d 37, 41 , 128 P.2d 623 , 625: ‘The obvious weakness in plaintiff’s position is that the record does not show that plaintiff could not have brought the action to trial within the five-year period.’ Nor is there any showing that plaintiffs, after learning of the court’s continuance beyond the July 16, 1956, setting, called the court’s attention to the fact that the continuance to September 25, 1956, was not within the five-year period. Further, there is no showing that plaintiffs made any objection thereto or sought to have it advanced to a date prior to the running of the statute. Under such circumstances, we feel it may be said that if the plaintiffs, upon learning of the postponement beyond the July 16th' date, had called the court’s attention to the consequences which would flow from it they could undoubtedly have secured an earlier date' for the trial, or possibly a stipulation from opposing counsel waiving the benefit of the st”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State Ex Rel. City of Las Cruces v. McManus