Clayton v. Schultz’s Empirical Analysis
1935
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently November 1985
15 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 Teralta Land & Water Co. v. Shaffer · Gottstein v. Kelly · 99 Cal. App. 545 - Sawyer v. Berkeley Securities Co. · 111 Cal. App. 587 - Scott v. Warden · Warden v. Ratterree
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There is no merit in respondents’ claim that the notice of sale was fatally defective in failing to separately state the items of ‘taxes, penalties and costs’, as required prior to 1929 —this on the theory that the applicable law is the law as it stood in 1926 which controls the period of redemption. (Risso v. Crooks, 217 Cal. 219, 220 [ 17 P.2d 1001 ]; Teralta Land etc. Co. v. Shaffer, 116 Cal. 518 [ 48 P. 613 , 58 Am.St.Rep. 194 ].) It is true that prior to 1929, following decision in the case of Gottstein v. Kelly, 206 Cal. 742 [ 276 P. 347 ], the possible construction to be placed upon the provisions of sections 3747 and 3764 of the Political Code was that taxes, penalties, and costs should be separately shown on the publication of delinquent lists and notices of sale under sections 3771 and 3771a. In that year, however, the legislature amended these provisions by requiring that the delinquent list show only ‘an. amount equal to the total amount of all taxes, assessments, penalties and costs due’ (sec. 3764), and in passing the amendatory act (Stats. 1929, p. 742), specifically declared that the amendments were ‘not a change in, but a statement and declaratory of the law as the legislature intended it to be by the terms of those sections prior to’ the amendment (sec. 4). Section 4 futher provided: ‘All publications of delinquent lists or notices of sale under sections 3771 and 3771a of the Political Code failing to enter taxes, penalties and costs as separate entries but”
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.