172 Cal. App. 2d 349 - Wright v. Rogers’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably 19 Cal. 3d 278 - Liodas v. Sahadi (1977), 190 Cal. App. 3d 844 - Seeley v. Seymour (1987)
2 federal appellate · 37 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 Ward v. Taggart · Gagne v. Bertran · Meyer v. State Board of Equalization · Gudger v. Manton · 24 Cal. 2d 290 - Zinn v. Ex-Cell-O Corp.
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The cause went to trial on the third amended complaint. Defendants' first contention is that the judgment should be reversed because there are inconsistencies between the allegations of the third amended complaint and the allegations of the prior complaints. The point is untenable. We need not state the argument in this respect because it runs counter to the principle contained in the Code of Civil Procedure § 469 et seq., which liberally permits amendments. The third amended complaint furnished the sole basis of the cause of action and the former ones ceased to have any effect as pleadings or as a basis for judgment. The prior pleadings cannot be looked to for the issues tried. 'It is well established that an amendatory pleading supersedes the original one, which ceases to perform any function as a pleading. * * * It is generally recognized, however, that a superseded pleading may be given some evidentiary effect, although the courts are not in accord as to the circumstances under which it may be considered. See IV Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed. 1940) 61, § 1067. By a long line of decisions, it is established in this state that such a pleading is not admissible as direct evidence to establish a fact in issue. [Citations.] The reason for this view is that the use of superseded plead ings to such extent as to embarrass the amending party is in derogation of the policy of liberality in permitting amendments to pleadings. [Citation.] However, where the party has testified in the a”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Raverty v. Goetz
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.