Cutting v. Bryan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 71 state decisions

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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The fact that the plaintiff was not expressly made a party to the action which had theretofore been commenced and was being prosecuted in the federal court does not, in our opinion, militate against the application of the foregoing principle, for the reasons set forth in certain of the cases above cited, and for the additional reason that the husband of the plaintiff was the principal party defendant in said action, and as such was representing the community interest of himself and also of his wife in said property, and that as to such interest the plaintiff herein was in privity with her husband and was represented in said action by him as fully as though she had been expressly made a party thereto. (McKay on Community Property, 2d ed., sec. 1085; 13 Cal.Jur., p. 882; Estate of Clark, 190 Cal. 354 [ 212 P. 622 ]; Lichty v. Lewis, 63 P. 535 ; s.c., 77 P. 111 [ 23 C.C.A. 59 ].) ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 33 Cal. 2d 315 - Zaragosa v. Craven · 74 Cal. App. 2d 139 - Yearout v. American Pipe & Steel Corp.

2. ““The court may refuse to exercise the power granted by this chapter in any case where its declaration or determination is not necessary or proper at the time under all the circumstances. ’’ (Italics ours.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. City of Alturas v. Gloster