Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 6 CAL2D 464 - Kellett v. Marvel

Kellett v. Marvel’s Empirical Analysis

1936

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
2
states following
July 1996
most recently cited

41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently July 1996 · most notably Luz v. Lopes (1960), 29 Cal. 2d 95 - Woodbine v. Van Horn (1946)

41 state decisions

1701936194019501960197019801990decided

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 Purity Springs Water Co. v. Redwood Ice Delivery · Estate of Smead · Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. Lester · 110 Cal. App. 691 - Kellett v. Kellett

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

  1. ““While it is true that the filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement and cannot be waived, the absence of prejudice and the efficacy of the things done to give notice to the other party that the appeal has been taken may be considered in determining whether there has been a sufficient compliance with the requirement of section 940 of the Code of Civil Procedure that a notice stating the appeal from the judgment or order be filed with the clerk of the court in which the judgment or order is entered. . . . Under the circumstances, where all the eases were consolidated, if only for the purpose of trial, and are bound to be considered together upon appeal, if only for the reason that the evidence taken applied to all, the entry in the register under the number of each case with a reference to the place where the notice itself was to be found in the files, can have resulted in no prejudice to the respondent and must be considered a substantial compliance with the requirement that the notice of appeal be filed in each case. Any other conclusion would be out of line with the rule of liberal construction of notice of appeal where the imperfections have not misled or prejudiced the respondent.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “notices of appeal are liberally construed to preserve the right of review unless it appears that the respondent has been misled by the misdescription”
    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.