21 Cal. 2d 354 - Butcher v. Brouwer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 66 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ It is clear that the principal object of the new enactment was to place upon a creditor seeking to enforce a judgment more than five years after its entry, the burden of showing why he was not able to satisfy his claim within the statutory period during which he is entitled to an execution as a matter of right. . .. and in view of the legislative and judicial history of section 685, its present provisions should be construed as authorizing the court to give a creditor an execution only if, during the five years following entry of judgment, he exercised due diligence in locating and levying upon property owned by the debtor, or in following available information to the point where a reasonable person would conclude that there was no property subject to levy within that time. And even though the creditor may have satisfied the court that he has proceeded with due diligence to enforce his judgment under section 681, the court may still deny him its process if the debtor shows circumstances occurring subsequent to the five-year period upon which, in the exercise of a sound discretion, it should conclude that he is not now entitled to collect his judgment.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mongerson v. Williams

2. “‘ ‘ In all cases the judgment may be enforced or carried into execution after the lapse of five years from the date of its entry, by leave of the court, upon motion, and after due notice to the judgment debtor accompanied by an affidavit or affidavits setting forth the reasons for failure to proceed in compliance with the provisions of section 681 of this code. The failure to set forth such reasons as shall, in the discretion of the court, be sufficient, shall be ground for the denial of the motion.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Pemberton v. Pemberton

3. ““. . . The amendment of a statute is evidence of an intention to change the rule which has been stated by the courts in applying its provisions (Hoffman v. McNamara, 102 Cal.App. 280, 285 [ 282 P. 990 ] ; and see, Crawford, Statutory Construction [1940], § 304, p. 618, and eases cited), ...””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 198 Cal. App. 2d 108 - Cockerill v. City of Redding