Garvin v. Chambers’s Empirical Analysis
1924
Citation profile
79 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably 66 Cal. 2d 260 - Parrish v. Civil Service Commission (1967), Steen v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners (1945)
79 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 In re Shortridge · Great Western Power Co. v. Pillsbury · Smith v. Westerfield · Stumpf v. Board of Supervisors of San Luis Obispo County · 57 Cal. App. 504 - Boyd v. Pendegast
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But when the board or tribunal in question has power to act only upon the establishment of a certain set of facts which necessarily form the foundation of jurisdiction and, therefore, may be denominated jurisdictional facts and there is no evidence whatever to show the existence of such facts, a finding by such board or tribunal that those facts do exist cannot foreclose inquiry by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon certiorari, as to whether or not the order sought to be reviewed is without any evidence to support it or is absolutely contrary to the uncontradieted and unconflieting evidence upon which it purports to rest.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““It is a fair summary of the decisions of this state, dealing with the scope of statutory certiorari, to say that the evidence adduced upon the hearing before an inferior board or tribunal having limited jurisdiction may be brought up to the reviewing court upon certiorari for the sole purpose of determining whether or not, from the evidence before it, the finding of a jurisdictional fact by such inferior board or tribunal is sustainable, and if there be no evidence to sustain such decision it must be annulled.””
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.