173 Cal. App. 2d 613 - Datta v. Staab’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently November 2005 · most notably 46 Cal. 3d 287 - Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988), Maldonado v. Harris (2004)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 70 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 Worcester County Trust Co. v. Riley · Todhunter v. Smith · 14 Cal. 2d 47 - Goddard v. Security Title Insurance & Guarantee Co. · Gigliotti v. Nunes · 46 Cal. 2d 874 - Clark v. Lesher
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Appellant asserts that a voluntary dismissal has only the effect of a withdrawal of the plaintiff’s claim; that it leaves the defendant as though he had never been a party. This is undoubtedly true where plaintiff has received nothing in return for the dismissal. (Cook v. Stewart McKee & Co., 68 Cal.App.2d 758 [ 157 P.2d 868 ]; McDougald v. Hulet, 132 Cal. 154 [ 64 P. 278 ]; Collins v. Ramish, 182 Cal. 360 [ 188 P. 550 ].) The effect of a dismissal with prejudice is quite different, however, when it is executed and filed in return for a consideration moving from the defendant. Such a dismissal operates as a complete bar to any future action (Markwell v. Swift & Co., 126 Cal.App.2d 245 [ 272 P.2d 47 ]), and has the same legal effect as a common law retraxit. (Ghiringhelli v. Riboni, 95 Cal.App.2d 503, 506 [ 213 P.2d 17 ]; Goddard v. Security Title Ins. & Guar. Co., 14 Cal.2d 47 [ 92 P.2d 804 ].) ‘A retraxit is equivalent to a verdict and judgment on the merits of the case and is deemed to be a bar to another suit for the same cause between the same parties. . . . Where the parties to an action settle their dispute and agree to a dismissal, it is a retraxit and amounts to a decision on the merits and as such is a bar to further litigation on the same subject matter between the parties.’ (17 Am.Jur. 162,163; see also 16 Cal.Jur.2d 146.) We accordingly hold, that in this state a dismissal after issues are joined, executed in return for a consideration moving from the defendant a”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“not only to claims which have been actually litigated but also to any claim which could have been asserted as a counterclaim arising out of the transaction on which the complaint in the prior action was founded.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Datta v. Staab, 173 Cal.App.2d 613, 621 [ 343 P.2d 977 ] : ‘Due process does not guarantee either a correct decision or consistency in decision.’ ””
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.