48 Cal. App. 739 - In Re Kling’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““To entitle a party to appeal directly from an order of this character, it must, as provided by section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure, appear that the same was made after final judgment rendered in the case wherein allowance of costs is sought. (Crane v. Forth, 95 Cal. 88 [ 30 Pac. 193 ]; Empire Gold Min. Co. v. Bonanza etc. Min. Co., 67 Cal. 406 [ 7 Pac. 810 ].) As stated, the judgment of disbarment was, on appeal, reversed for insufficiency of the evidence to justify the findings implied therein. The effect of .such reversal was to remand the case for a new trial. (Ryan v. Tomlinson, 39 Cal. 639 ; Falkner v. Hendy, 107 Cal. 49 [ 40 Pac. 21, 386 .) By such action the parties, until a new trial was had or other disposition made of the case, were in precisely the same position as if a trial thereof had never been had. (Sharp v. Miller, 66 Cal. 98 [ 4 Pac. 1065 ].) Hence, for the reason that at the time of the making of the order no final judgment had been rendered in the case, the order is not appealable. A review thereof can be had only upon an appeal from the judgment. (Lasky v. Davis, 33 Cal. 677 ; Stevenson v. Smith, 28 Cal. 105 [87 Am. Dec. 107]; Empire Gold Min. Co. v. Bonanza etc. Min Co., supra.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 74 Cal. App. 152 - Markart v. Zeimer