49 Cal. App. 2d 607 - Hewett v. Linstead’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently October 2003 · most notably 192 Cal. App. 2d 105 - Stevens v. Torregano (1961), 55 Cal. App. 2d 421 - Wilson v. Wilson (1942)
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 22 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 United States v. Throckmorton · Bacon v. Bacon · Caldwell v. Taylor · Sohler v. Sohler · Mulcahey v. Dow
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Although there is some confusion in the cases, we agree with plaintiffs that the better rule is that where a legatee knows of the existence of other heirs, and, for the purpose of defrauding such heirs and benefiting himself, fails to notify the court of the existence of such heirs, and knowingly files false petitions with the court representing there are no such heirs, he is guilty of extrinsic fraud warranting the imposition of a trust on the fraudulent distributee's interest." (Emphasis mine.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Honk v. Karlsson · Phillips v. Ball“It is true that in most cases of extrinsic fraud the defendant has said something directly to the person whose rights were involved amounting to representations that it was not necessary for such person to take any part in the proceedings.... But the rule allowing the maintenance of an action in equity for extrinsic fraud should not be limited so strictly as to require as a basis evidence of representations made directly to the one defrauded.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"These cases established the rule to be that where a distributee is ignorant of the existence of an heir, * * * and all statutory notices have been given, there has been no `mistake' that will warrant relief under section 2224 of the Civil Code." (Emphasis mine.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Phillips v. Ball
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.