Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 40 Ariz. 519 - Bryant v. Bryant

Bryant v. Bryant’s Empirical Analysis

1932

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
September 2012
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently September 2012

18 state decisions

40193219401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Beltran v. Roll · People v. Helm · Reclamation District No. 535 v. Hamilton · Garden Development Co. v. Carlaw · Gutheridge v. Gutheridge

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

  1. ““The substance of his excuse is that he hoped and believed that the parties would adjust their differences and the action be dismissed without its being heard, and that he thought when the trial took place he would be given notice thereof. That this is utterly insufficient to show excusable neglect would seem to be obvious. The summons required him to answer within a certain time or judgment would be taken against him, and plaintiff in no way by her conduct or actions had given him reasonable cause to believe that she did not intend to proceed with the action. ...” 40 Ariz. at 523 , 14 P.2d 712 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The general distinction between ministerial and judicial acts seems to be that, where the duty to be performed is described by law with such certainty that nothing is left to the exercise of discretion or judgment, the act is ministerial, but, where it requires discretion or judgment to determine whether the duty to act exists or not, it is judicial. In other words, the necessity of the exercise of judgment or discretion is generally held to be the distinguishing test.”
    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.