Olivera v. Grace’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 263 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 275 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably 23 Cal. 2d 719 - Maguire v. Hibernia Savings & Loan Society (1944), 29 Cal. 2d 34 - Speegle v. Board of Fire Underwriters (1946)
2 federal appellate · 263 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 Bacon v. Bacon · Caldwell v. Taylor · McGuinness v. Superior Court · People v. Greene · Robson v. Superior Court
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 275 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““One -who has been prevented by extrinsic factors from presenting his case to the court may bring an independent action in equity to secure relief from the judgment entered against him. . . . Where the court that rendered the judgment possesses a general jurisdiction in law and in equity, the jurisdiction of equity may be invoked by means of a motion addressed to that court.” (Emphasis added.) The power of the superior court to grant appropriate equitable relief pursuant to the motion of the aggrieved party in a case of this kind was reaffirmed in the recent decision in Davis v. Davis, 185 Cal.App.2d 788, 791-792 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 874 ].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“presents facts from which it can be ascertained that the [party] has a sufficiently meritorious claim to entitle him to a trial of the issue at a proper adversary proceeding”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Equity's jurisdiction to interfere with final judgments is based upon the absence of a fair, adversary trial in the original action. `It [is] a settled doctrine of the equitable jurisdiction ... that where [a] legal judgment was obtained or entered through fraud, mistake, or accident ... a court of equity [may] interfere ... and restrain proceedings on the judgment which cannot be conscientiously enforced.... The ground for the exercise of this jurisdiction is that there has been no fair adversary trial at law.' (5 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence (Equitable Remedies [2d ed.]), pp. 4671, 4672.)”
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.