Overton v. White’s Empirical Analysis
1937
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently October 1984 · most notably 20 Cal. 2d 751 - Universal Sales Corp. v. California Press Manufacturing Co. (1942), 212 Cal. App. 2d 345 - Frustuck v. City of Fairfax (1963)
36 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 Lattin v. Gillette · Rudd v. Byrnes · Lilly-Brackett Co. v. Sonnemann · Aronson & Co. v. Pearson · Acock v. Halsey
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... (giving the number of the section and subdivision thereof, if it is so divided, relied upon) ...”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In the instant case only the provisions of subdivision one of section 337 were applicable to the facts of the case. That section contains two subdivisions. The answer did not refer to the proper subdivision. It was not amended in the trial court. The objection of the insufficiency of the pleading was raised in the trial court. For these reasons the cases cited by defendant are distinguishable and are not controlling here. As the case of Wolters v. Thomas, supra, cannot be distinguished in principle from the instant case, and as it has not been overruled or modified, we feel it is controlling here, and consequently hold that the provisions of section 458 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be strictly applied, and that the attempted plea of the statute of limitations by defendant was insufficient to raise that issue in the trial court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“No demurrer was interposed to the answer, which, for the purposes of the trial, was assumed to sufficiently present the defense, and the court made its findings thereon. Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that the attempt to plead subdivision 1 of section 339 should not be treated as a nullity, and that the objection to the manner of pleading it was waived by the failure of plaintiffs to urge such objection in the trial court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.