Dolch v. Ramsey’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently October 1984
12 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 Benson Mining & Smelting Co. v. Alta Mining & Smelting Co. · Lightner Mining Co. v. Lane · 5 Cal. 2d 361 - Nicholson v. City of Los Angeles · 13 Cal. 2d 60 - Pacific Western Oil Co. v. Bern Oil Co. · 20 Cal. App. 2d 170 - Union Oil Co. v. Reconstruction Oil Co.
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘A common situation is one where conflicting property rights are involved, and of these Mr. Pomeroy says (Pomeroy's Equity Juris., vol. 2, 4th ed. p. 1154, § 608), “Whenever a party has information or knowledge of certain extraneous facts, which of themselves do not amount to, nor tend to show, an actual notice, but which are sufficient to put a reasonably prudent man upon an inquiry respecting a conflicting interest, claim, or right, and the circumstances are such that the inquiry, if made and followed up with reasonable care and diligence, would lead to a discovery of the truth, to a knowledge of the interest, claim, or right which really exists, then the party is absolutely charged with a constructive notice of such interest, claim, or right.” ’ See, also, Nicholson v. City of Los Angeles, 5 Cal.2d 361 [ 54 P.2d 725 ]; West v. Great Western Power Co., 36 Cal.App.2d 403 [ 97 P.2d 1014 ]; Price v. Mason-McDuffie Co., 50 Cal.App.2d 320 [ 122 P.2d 971 ].””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““We must hold that defendant had constructive notice that the claim had been patented and belonged to plaintiff; that he was a trespasser when he went on the property and removed gold ore that belonged to another. Under these circumstances he did not act in good faith without knowledge that the mine was the property of another. Under such circumstances he was liable for the value of the gold he took, without any deduction for his expenses in wrongfully taking it.””
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.