Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 37 CAL2D 6 - Markwort v. McGee

Markwort v. McGee’s Empirical Analysis

1951

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
1
states following
January 2011
most recently cited

40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently January 2011 · most notably 33 Cal. 3d 158 - Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Commission (1982), 70 Cal. 2d 143 - Bloniarz v. Roloson (1969)

40 state decisions

1801951196019701980199020002010decided

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 In re Estate of Levinson · Isenberg v. Sherman · 36 Cal. 2d 592 - Markwort v. McGee · Carter v. J. W. Silver Trucking Co. · Trumpler v. Trumpler

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

  1. ““. . . [A]s a general rule, this court cannot exercise any jurisdiction over a cause in which the remittitur has been issued by its order and filed in the Court below. The office of the remittitur is to return the proceedings which have been brought up by the appeal to the Court below, and when the remittitur has been duly filed, the proceedings from that time are pending in that Court, and not in this; and, in regard to them, it is not competent for this Court to make any further order. “But this general rule rests upon the supposition that all the proceedings have been regular, and that no fraud or imposition has been practiced upon the Court or the opposite party; for if it appears that such has been the case, the appellate Court will assert its jurisdiction and recall the case. Against an order or judgment improvidently granted, upon a false suggestion, or under a mistake as to the facts of the ease, this Court will afford relief after the adjournment of the term; and will, if necessary, recall a remittitur and stay proceedings in the Court below. This is not done, however, upon the principle of resumption of jurisdiction, but upon the ground that the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be divested by an irregular or improvident order. In contemplation of law, an order obtained upon a false suggestion is not the order of the Court, and may be treated as a nullity.” The motion here is made “on the ground that fraud and imposition were practiced upon this Court, and upon the p”
    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.