Stephens v. Berry’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently December 2004 · most notably 175 Cal. App. 3d 345 - Dieckmann v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1985), 28 Cal. App. 3d 714 - Semole v. Sansoucie (1972)
1 federal appellate · 38 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 44 Cal. App. 558 - Mercantile Trust Co. v. Stockton Terminal & Eastern Railroad · 213 Cal. App. 2d 474 - Lipman v. Rice · 2 Cal. App. 436 - Nisbet v. Clio Mining Co. · 113 Cal. App. 118 - Smith v. Pickwick Stages System · Thompson v. Southern Pacific Co.
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Code of Civil Procedure section 473 permits amendment of a pleading by adding or striking out the name of a party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party. The cited cases furnish good examples of the scope of the statute where its authority is used to correct a mistake in the name of a party. ( Thompson v. Southern Pacific Co., supra, [ 180 Cal. 730 ( 183 P. 153 )] `Southern Pacific Company' misnamed `Southern Pacific Railroad Company'; Nisbet v. Clio Mining Co., supra, [ 2 Cal. App. 436 ( 83 P. 1007 )] `Clio Mining Company' sued as `Clio Mill and Mining Company'; Smith v. Pickwick Stages System, supra, [ 113 Cal. App. 118 ( 297 P. 940 )] `Pickwick Stages System, a corporation' substituted as a defendant in place of `Pickwick Corporation, a corporation.') In each of the above cases misnomer is evident, and amendment to correct clerical error was properly allowed. But, as said in 1 Chadbourn, Grossman & Van Alstyne, California Pleading, section 686: `Amendment to correct an honest mistake in the naming of a party, however, must be sharply distinguished from the question whether the correctly named party is actually being joined in the litigation for the first time under the guise of a claim of misnomer.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Allowable amendments. The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon such terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“When the plaintiff is ignorant of the name of a defendant, he must state that fact in the complaint, ... and such defendant may be designated in any pleading or proceeding by any name, and when his true name is discovered, the pleading or proceeding must be amended accordingly; ...”
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.