49 Cal. App. 154 - Monk v. Morgan’s Empirical Analysis
1920
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently October 2003 · most notably 5 Cal. 2d 35 - Texas Co. v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n (1935), 192 Cal. App. 2d 105 - Stevens v. Torregano (1961)
2 federal appellate · 28 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 Pico v. Cohn · Parsons v. Weis · William Hill Co. v. Lawler · In re Estate of Griffith · Cunha v. Hughes
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The proceeding for the probate of an estate is, under our statutes, in the nature of a proceeding in rem; and this being so, it has been frequently held that by the giving of the notices directed by the statute the entire world is called before the court and the court acquires jurisdiction thereby over the estate and over all persons for the purpose of determining their rights to any portion of the estate, and that by virtue thereof every person who may assert any right or interest in said estate is required to present his claim to the court for its determination; and that whether he appear and present his claim or fail to so appear the action of the court is equally conclusive upon him [citations]. [2] On the other hand, it has been held that where, by reason of any defect in the procedure attending the issuance or giving of such constructive notice as is required to be given, either in probate or other cases, to give the court jurisdiction, the parties affected did not receive such constructive notice, all subsequent action of the court based thereon is subject to attack either in that or in a later equitable proceeding. Such are the cases of Dunlap v. Steere, 92 Cal. 344 [ 27 Am.St.Rep. 143 , 16 L.R.A. 361 , 28 P. 563 ]; Parsons v. Weis, 144 Cal. 420 [ 77 P. 1007 ]; and Doyle v. Hampton, 159 Cal. 733 [ 116 P. 39 ]; in each of which cases the procedure for acquiring jurisdiction over the parties affected by such constructive notice as was required to be given was defective.”
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.