Schaefer v. Berinstein’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably 267 Cal. App. 2d 231 - Oakes v. McCarthy Co. (1968), 262 Cal. App. 2d 222 - Millbrae Assn. for Residential Survival v. City of Millbrae (1968)
48 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 Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co. · Nichols v. Mitchell · Bainbridge v. Stoner · 140 Cal. App. 2d 278 - Schaefer v. Berinstein · 25 Cal. 2d 447 - Neet v. Holmes
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘In the absence of statutory authority and where no fund has been created or preserved, a taxpayer is not entitled to the allowance of counsel fees.’ [Citations.] While the actions have resulted in a saving to the city and, to that extent, a public service has been rendered, the city treasury was in no sense in the custody or control of the trial court and that court could not order any amount paid therefrom as counsel fees in either case. The same reasoning applies to the claims of each appellant with respect to reimbursement for expenses of investigation and litigation.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“No action for the recovery of real property, or for the recovery of the possession thereof, can be maintained, unless it appear that the plaintiff, his ancestor, predecessor, or grantor, was seised or possessed of the property in question, within five years before the commencement of the action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]he nature of the complaint in the Schaefer case is set forth in the opinion on the prior appeal and need not be repeated here.”
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.