4 Cal. 3d 649 - Ferguson v. Keays’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

135 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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Quite aside from the question as to the power of the [L]egislature to do this thing, it is obvious that only the plainest declaration of legislative intent would be construed as even an effort to do this thing. We find no expressed intent. All of the statutes dealing with the payment and prepayment of fees ... are general in their nature and have to do with the orderly collection and disposition of the fees. ... Neither individually nor collectively are they even susceptible of the construction that the design of the [L]egislature was to deny to the courts the exercise of their most just and most necessary inherent power. They have applicability to all cases where the court has not, in the exercise of that power, remitted the payment of the fees on behalf of a poor suitor, and in every instance the court's order to this effect is sufficient warrant to every officer charged with the collection of fees to omit the performance of that duty in the specified case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 5 Cal. 5th 594 - Jameson v. Desta

2. “[T]he applicant should, at a minimum, submit (1) the certificate of his counsel, declaring that he is familiar with the facts underlying the action or appeal, that in his opinion his client's contentions have merit, and that the action or appeal is brought in good faith and not for purposes of delay or harassment, and (2) the declaration of the applicant, executed under penalty of perjury, stating that he is unable to pay the requisite filing fee without depriving himself or his dependents of the necessaries of life, and briefly setting forth the facts which disclose his indigence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 89 - Burkes v. Robertson

3. ““ * * * should be exercised with a view to confine the privilege most strictly to those who, having a substantial right to enforce or preserve, áre absolutely unable otherwise to so do,, and who, once having been admitted to proceed in forma pauperis, diligently pursue a course free from unreasonable delay or vexatious conduct of any kind.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jones v. Aciz