Brandenburger v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

56 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . When property is held under section 1027, claimants must appear and claim the estate or any part thereof in the Superior Court of Sacramento County. If the claim is not filed within the statutory period, it ‘shall be forever barred, and such property, or so much thereof as is not claimed shall vest absolutely in the State.’ Section 1027 further provides that ‘Rights of nonresident aliens shall be governed by the provisions of Section 1026.’ Since the sentence of section 1027 preceding the quoted reference to section 1026, provides that the five-year period under section 1027 commences from the date of the decree making distribution to the State Treasurer, the purpose of the reference to section 1026 is to call attention to the fact that when nonresident aliens succeed to the property, the five-year period is computed from the ‘time of succession’ rather than from the date of distribution. When sections 1026 and 1027 are read together, it is clear that after the State Treasurer takes possession of assets of an estate pursuant to section 1027, a ‘demand’ by a nonresident alien under section 1026 must be made in the Superior Court of Sacramento County in the same manner that a ‘claim’ would be made for other assets held by the State Treasurer under section 1027, and that, after the distribution to the State Treasurer, the only difference between the two classes of property is that in the case of a nonresident alien the five-year period for making the claim is computed in ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Estate of Spinosa

2. ““Petitioner contends that proceedings under sections 1026 and 1027 are subject to sections 354 and 356 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This contention must be sustained. A ‘disability’ under section 354 and a ‘statutory prohibition’ under section 356 are both present since the Trading With the Enemy Act prevented petitioner from filing a claim to the property. The word ‘action’ in sections 354 and 356 includes a ‘special proceeding of a civil nature.’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 363.) When a claim is filed in the Superior Court of Sacramento County pursuant to sections 1026 and 1027, the applicable procedure is that outlined in section 1272 and 1272a of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ebert v. State, 33 Cal.2d 502, 509 [ 202 P.2d 1022 ]; see amendment to § 1027 by Stats. 1951, ch. 1459, § 1), and those sections are in part III of the Code of Civil Procedure, entitled ‘ Special Proceedings of a Civil Nature. ’ It is thus clear that the act of filing a claim in the Superior Court of Sacramento County under sections 1026 and 1027 is the ‘commencement of an action’ within sections 354 and 356. (Taketa v. State Board of Equalization, 104 Cal.App.2d 455, 459 [ 231 P.2d 873 ] [mandate to set aside order revoking liquor license]; People v. Grant, 52 Cal.App.2d 794, 800 [ 127 P.2d 19 ] [proceeding under Pen. Code, § 325 to forfeit money taken from slot machines]; Wells v. California Tomato Juice, Inc., 47 Cal.App.2d 634 [ 118 P.2d 916 ] [proceeding to enforce mechanic’s lien].) “Moreover, althou”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Estate of Spinosa

3. “Clearly, whether a particular statute of limitation is viewed as substantive or procedural, the consequences of a failure to commence legal proceedings within the specified time are the same insofar as the claimant is concerned * * *. [In re Caravas’ Estate, 40 Cal. 2d 33 , 250 P. 2d 593, 597 (1952)]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. White v. Violent Crimes Compensation Board