Rose v. Knapp’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 113 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 120 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The provision of section 583, requiring dismissal if an action is not brought to trial within five years after the filing of the complaint unless the parties have stipulated for an extension of the period, is mandatory, but it is subject to implied exceptions. As stated in Christin v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.2d 526, 532-533 [ 71 P.2d 205 , 112 A.L.R. 1153 ], ‘The purpose of the statute is plain: to prevent avoidable delay for too long a period. It is not designed arbitrarily to close the proceeding at all events in five years . . .’ and one exception has been recognized ‘where, for all practical purposes, going to trial would be impossible, whether this was because of total lack of jurisdiction in the strict sense, or because proceeding to trial would be both impracticable and futile. ’ (See also Pacific Greyhound Lines v. Superior Court, 28 Cal.2d 61, 67-68 [ 168 P.2d 665 ]; City of Pasadena v. City of Alhambra, 33 Cal.2d 908, 916-917 [ 207 P.2d 17 ] ; Judson v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.2d 11, 14 [ 129 P.2d 361 ] ; Westphal v. Westphal, 61 Cal.App.2d 544, 550 [ 143 P.2d 405 ].) What is impossible, impracticable or futile must, of course, be determined in the light of the facts of the particular case.””

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 157 Cal. App. 2d 168 - Southern Pac. Co. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County · 2 Cal. 3d 545 - Brunzell Construction Co. v. Wagner

2. ““. . . Any action heretofore or hereafter commenced shall be dismissed by the court in which the same shall have been commenced . . . unless such action is brought to trial within five years after the plaintiff has filed his action, except where the parties have filed a stipulation in writing that the same may be extended and except where it be shown that the defendant has been absent from the State or concealed therein and his whereabouts unknown to plaintiff and not discoverable . . . upon due diligence, in which event said period of absence or concealment shall not be part of said five-year period. . . .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wilson v. Barry · 256 Cal. App. 2d 236 - Sylvestre v. King Manufacturing Co.