Willy H. Willis v. Thomas B. Reddin’s Empirical Analysis
418 F.2d 702 · 1969
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably Singleton v. City of New York (1980), 16 Cal. 3d 834 - Williams v. Horvath (1976)
29 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 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 Bell v. Hood · Holmberg v. Armbrecht · Campbell v. City of Haverhill · McAllister v. Magnolia Petroleum Co. · Russell M. Smith v. John J. Cremins, Jr., John F. Mahon, Jr.
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In California!,1 statutes or ordinances which condition the right to sue the sovereign upon timely filing of claims and actions are more than procedural requirements. They are elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action and conditions precedent to the maintenance of the action. When the action is against the public employee rather than the public entity such statutes are given the same effect. While it may be completely appropriate for California to condition rights which grow out of local law and which are related to waivers of the sovereign immunity of the state and its public entities, California may not impair federally created rights or impose conditions upon them. Were the requirements of the Tort Claims Act nothing more than procedural limitations we would in fashioning the remedial details applicable to the federally created right involved here, determine whether the California courts would apply the requirements of the California Tort Claims Act. However!,] since the requirements of that Act, under the interpretations of the California courts, condition the right, we think it would be singularly inappropriate to fashion a federal procedural detail by any reference to it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In California[,] statutes or ordinances which condition the right to sue the sov: ereign upon timely filing of claims and actions are more that procedural requirements. They are elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action and conditions precedent to the maintenance of the action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“* This Court attempted to construe the complaint, originally and as amended, “ * * * with the particular liberality required where the pleader is a layman * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.