207 Cal. App. 3d 1377 - Slemaker v. Woolley’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
22 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 2 Cal. 3d 557 - Denham v. Superior Court · 22 Cal. 3d 626 - Bauguess v. Paine · California Ex Rel. Cooper v. Mitchell Brothers' Santa Ana Theater · Carlson v. Superior Court · 61 Cal. 2d 698 - Lund 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A contrary holding would defeat the purpose of section 904.1 and encourage multiple appeals in a single action. Discovery orders in a single lawsuit can be numerous and ongoing and provide limitless fodder for interim appeals.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“an order imposing sanctions under section 2025 for failure to make discovery on an attorney currently representing a party in a pending matter is not a separately appealable final order.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]he better view is that an order made for the purposes of furthering discovery proceedings, or granting sanctions for refusal to make discovery, is not appealable [citations].”
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.