Drinkhouse v. Van Ness’s Empirical Analysis
1927
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 90 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably 22 Cal. 3d 865 - Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co. (1978), Viner v. Untrecht (1945)
3 federal appellate · 90 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 Holtum v. Grief · Kaufman v. Shain · Boa v. San Francisco-Oakland Terminal Rys. · Biaggi v. Ramont · United Railroads 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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When a motion for a new trial has been made in due form, upon a settled statement, and the court has passed on the motion, the order regularly made is conclusive so far as the court making it is concerned. It cannot afterward, even on motion, vacate the order and decide the matter anew. (Coombs v. Hibberd, 43 Cal. 452 ; Dorland v. Cunningham, 66 Cal. 484 [ 6 Pac. 135 ].) There are, of course, exceptions to the general rule. An order irregularly made is not subject to it, and may be set aside on a proper showing, if application is made therefor. (Holtum v. Greif, 144 Cal. 521, 524 [ 78 Pac. 11 ]; Morris v. De Celis, 41 Cal. 331 .) ””
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.