Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 57 CAL 501 - Tregambo v. Comanche Mill & Mining Co.

Tregambo v. Comanche Mill & Mining Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1881

Citation profile

89
cited by 89 later decisions
10
states following
April 2024
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 85 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Burtnett v. King (1949), Berri v. Superior Court (1955)

1 federal appellate · 85 state decisions — followed in 10 states

130188118901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Engleman v. State · Bishop v. Cook · Lamson v. Falls · Higgins v. Mahoney · Lick v. Madden

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

  1. ““We think the district court should have set aside a default under such circumstances. When the demurrers were placed in the custody of the clerk, he had a legal right to refuse to file them, unless the fees for that service were paid to him. Cal. Codes (Sts. in Force) § 765; Pol. Code Cal. § 4332. But he did not refuse, nor did he demand any fees then or afterwards for filing the demurrers. Three of four days after he received them for filing, he demanded,, hy letter, ‘$66, as fees on filing twenty-two demurrers in said ' case.’ But there was no law which allowed $3 as a fee for filing a demurrer. The demand was therefore unauthorized hy law. Having failed to demand his fees for filing the demurrers at the time they were delivered to him to he filed, or at any time thereafter, he waived his personal privilege of requiring prepayment. There is no question hut that a clerk of a court may waive a right created hy statute. Lick v. Madden, 25 Cal. 203 . When, therefore, the demurrers were brought and deposited with the clerk for filing, they were, in contemplation of law as to the defendant, on file in the case. A paper in a case is said to he filed when it is delivered to the clerk, and received hy him, to he kept with the papers in the cause. Engleman v. State, 2 Ind. 91 . Filing a paper consists in presenting it at the proper office, and leaving it there, deposited with the papers in such office. Indorsing it with the time of filing is not a necessary part of filing; Bishop v.”
    2 later decisions 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.