Kennedy v. Wollenberg’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
2 district · 101 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 103 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably 11 Cal. 3d 1 - D'AMICO v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974), 20 Cal. 3d 25 - Serrano v. Priest (1977)
2 district · 101 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 Winslow v. Harold G. Ferguson Corp. · Thomas v. Hosselkus · 7 Cal. 2d 712 - Murphey v. American Jewish Congress · In Re Estate of Higgins · Queirolo v. Ruhland
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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The bases of the equitable rule which permits surcharging a common fund with the expenses of its protection or recovery, including counsel fees, appear to be these: fairness to the successful litigant, who might otherwise receive no benefit because his recovery might be consumed by the expenses; correlative prevention of an unfair advantage to the others who are entitled to share in the fund and who should bear their share of the burden of its recovery; encouragement of the attorney for the successful litigant, who will be more willing to undertake and diligently prosecute proper litigation for the protection or recovery of the fund if he is assured that he will be promptly and directly compensated should his efforts be successful.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“If any surcharge of the shares of the successful beneficiaries of the will had been sought for the services of respondents as attorneys for the heirs, the situation would appear to come within the following `view adopted by other jurisdictions' and by Estate of Bullock (1955) 133 Cal. App.2d 542, 547 [ 284 P.2d 960 ]: `[T]hat allowance of attorneys' fees for one party to be charged on the general fund where the other interested parties are represented by attorneys in the same litigation, will not be made. That such an allowance is justified only where the other parties have stood without counsel and would reap the benefits of the services rendered by the attorney conducting the proceedings. That where ... the other interested parties all retain counsel, the equitable rule of paying from the general fund does not apply [citations].' (Cf. Wallace v. Fiske (1936, C.C.A. 8) 80 F.2d 897, 905, 907-909 [ 107 A.L.R. 726 ], cert. den. 298 U.S. 675 [ 56 S.Ct. 940 , 80 L.Ed. 1397 ]; Buford v. Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Assn. (1930, C.C.A. 4) 42 F.2d 791, 792 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“that portion of the estate not disposed of by the will,”
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.