Murphy v. Retirement Board’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently June 1967
16 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 100 Cal. App. 270 - Mogan v. Board of Police Commissioners · 130 Cal. App. 66 - McColgan v. Board of Police Commissioners · 113 Cal. App. 301 - Sevina v. Hickok
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When the case is one in mandamus to ‘review’ the trial and judgment of an administrative, or quasi-judicial board, the function of the trial court is not that of a court sitting in a trial de novo. We endeavored to make this clear in Hogan v. Retirement Board, 13 Cal.App.2d 676, 677 [ 57 P.2d 520 ], where we said: ‘When the law gives to a fact-finding body the power to hear and determine a question of fact, the judgment of that body will not be controlled by mmdamus in the absence of a showing that it acted arbitrarily, capriciously or fraudulently, or without due regard for the rights of the applicant.’ (Mogan v. Board of Police Commrs., 100 Cal.App. 270 [ 279 P. 1080 ]; Sevina v. Hickok, 113 Cal.App. 301 [ 298 P. 116 ] ; McColgan v. Board of Police Commrs., 130 Cal.App. 66 [ 19 P.2d 815 ].)””
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.