Lundberg v. Katz’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently January 1963 · most notably 212 Cal. App. 2d 345 - Frustuck v. City of Fairfax (1963), Tabata v. Murane (1944)
44 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 Zellner v. Wassman · 46 Cal. App. 178 - Mayborne v. Citizens Trust & Savings Bank · Estate of Dutard v. Bank of California · Etchas v. Orena · 94 Cal. App. 441 - Nylund v. Madsen
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘ ‘ The claim in this case noted the date of the agreement, the nature of the services performed and the estimated value of the property asked in payment therefor. In Syler v. Katzer, 12 Cal.2d 348, 350 [ 84 P.2d 137 , 119 A.L.R. 422 ], the court said: ‘The contention is then, that the claim was insufficient in form, ... it may be said that there is no necessity that a creditor’s claim be drafted with precision and completeness of a pleading. The only requirement is that it state such facts as will apprise the executor or administrator of the amount of the demand. (See Standiford v. Cantrell, 87 Cal.App. 736 [ 262 P. 800 ]; United States Gypsum Co. v. Shaffer, 7 Cal.2d 454 [ 60 P.2d 998 ].) The claim in the instant case clearly called to the attention of the executor the fact of the services, the period during which they were rendered (up to the time of death), and the amount demanded. If any uncertainty remained, it was incumbent upon the executor to call for clarification (Standiford v. Cantrell, supra). . . .’ ” (P. 44.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Shabrick v. Moore“if the cause of action is substantially based upon the claim, and the estate has not been placed in a position of disadvantage as by lack of opportunity without additional expense, to pay or compromise the claim, the action may be maintained. The strict rule ... that a claimant may recover only when the cause of action specifically follows the claim, has been modified.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Tabata v. Murane““. . . Under proper circumstances, a claim filed within the statutory time may be amended after the expiration of the statutory period. (United States Gypsum Co. v. Shaffer, supra.) It would have been proper to permit plaintiff to petition the probate court to file an amended claim before final action on a demurrer. ...” (P. 45.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Shabrick v. Moore
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.