44 Cal. App. 786 - Fox v. Flood’s Empirical Analysis
1919
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently May 1977
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 Doak v. Bruson · 13 Cal. App. 720 - Whitley v. Bradley · Boland v. All Persons Etc. · 40 Cal. App. 432 - Davies v. Ramsdell · Pouder v. Tate
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.
“"The power to appoint a receiver is very largely within the discretion of the trial court, and an appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of such discretion except in cases of palpable abuse. (Whitley v. Bradley, 13 Cal. App. 720, 724, 725 [ 110 Pac. 596 ].) In reviewing an appeal from an order made upon affidavits, in which the determination of a question of fact is involved, the court is governed by the same rules applicable to oral testimony. If the affidavits are conflicting, the facts stated in the affidavits favorable to the prevailing party must be considered as established.” (Citing eases.) (See, also, McCarthy v. Kurkjian, 69 Cal. App. 682 [ 232 Pac. 161 ].)”
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.