Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 3 Cal. App. 3d 1001 - Jay v. Dollarhide

3 Cal. App. 3d 1001 - Jay v. Dollarhide’s Empirical Analysis

1970

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
3
states following
March 2000
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently March 2000 · most notably San Luis Obispo Bay Properties, Inc. v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1972), Div. of Labor Law Enf't v. Transpacific Transp. Co. (1977)

24 state decisions

1201970198019902000decided

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

Applies 16 U.S.C. § 483 · 43 U.S.C. § 872

Relies on Desist v. United States · Hunt v. Rousmanier's Administrators · Seeger v. Odell · 33 Cal. 2d 116 - Sjoberg v. Hastorf · Clement Hunt v. Christopher Rhodes

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

  1. ““. . . The Code of Civil Procedure sections 632 and 634 only require that the findings shall disclose the court’s determination of all issues of fact in the case. This has been properly interpreted to relate to ultimate facts and not to require the court to make a specific determination on every conflict of evidence, much less, to diagram all the intermediate decisions on points of law. . . . “The established practice presupposes that counsel desiring such special findings will draft and propose them in the usual form (Code Civ. Proc., § 634). The action of the court in approving or disapproving them will constitute the ruling. Appellants here sought to conduct a general inquisition and neither drafted nor submitted any proposals for such consideration. “Any deficiencies claimed by appellants in this regard are not grounds for reversal of the judgment. [Citations.]””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The word `heirs' is no longer limited to designating the character of the estate, as at common law.”
    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.