Laidley v. Heigho’s Empirical Analysis
326 F.2d 592 · 1963
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 2007
1 federal appellate · 3 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 101 Cal. App. 2d 638 - Rice v. Schubert · 40 Cal. App. 2d 417 - Liuzza v. Bell · 45 Cal. App. 2d 188 - Richardson v. Michel · 63 Cal. App. 2d 178 - Heffernan v. Bennett & Armour · 186 Cal. App. 2d 360 - Bierschbach v. Heigho
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`surely the [Uniform Act] does not contemplate the absurdity of granting such relief where, as here, judgment cannot be obtained against the only party in whom the transferred property could be revested.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.