Diepenbrock v. Auslen’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
March 1964
most recently cited
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Goossen v. Clifton · Dawson v. Goff · Hutchinson v. Dow · 87 Cal. App. 301 - Gas Appliance Sales Co. v. W. B. Bastian Manufacturing Co. · Turner v. Simpson
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ' “The general rule is that a defendant is entitled to have actions tried in the county of his residence. The right of the plaintiff to have the action tried elsewhere is the exceptional right, and must find its justification in the terms of some statute. It is the duty of a plaintiff to bring himself within some exception if he can—otherwise, the defendant’s right is to have the case tried in the county of his residence. ’ ’ ’ (International Investment Co. v. Chagnon, 170 Cal.App.2d 441, 443 [ 339 P.2d 147 ] ; see also Goossen v. Clifton, 75 Cal.App.2d 44, 47 [ 170 P.2d 104 ].) “ ‘. . . [M] ere conclusions or indefinite statements of a pleader will not suffice to create a prima facie case entitling one to maintain an action at a county other than that of the residence of the defendant. ’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wheeler v. Moschetti““Where the evidence on the motion for a change of venue is conflicting . . . the judgment will not be disturbed. (Gas Appliance Sales Co., Inc. v. W. B. Bastian Mfg. Co., 87 Cal.App. 301 , at page 310 [ 262 P. 452 ].) .... “Section 395 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the county in which the contract sued on is made and is to be performed is a proper county for trial of the action. (Duran v. Lynn, 166 Cal.App.2d 449, 451 [ 333 P.2d 253 ], and, cases cited.) Further, it will be noted that the county where the contract is made is deemed to be the county where it is to be performed, unless there is a special contract in writing to the contrary. (Code Civ. Proc., § 395; Dawson v. Goff, 43 Cal.2d 310, 315 [ 273 P.2d 1 ].)””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wheeler v. Moschetti
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.