Yeap v. Leake’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably 43 Cal. 4th 584 - People v. Williams (2008), 97 Cal. App. 4th 132 - Carver v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2002)
68 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 44 Cal. 3d 474 - Shamblin v. Brattain · 23 Cal. 3d 590 - In Re Marriage of Connolly · Banco Do Brasil, S.A. v. Latian, Inc. · 40 Cal. 3d 703 - Canaan v. Abdelnour · 28 Cal. App. 4th 613 - Johnson v. Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc.
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, the language of section 473(b), including the statute’s structure and the dichotomous nature of the relief it affords, discretionary versus mandatory: The discretionary provision applies to “a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against” a party, while the mandatory provision applies only to a “default entered by the [court] clerk,” or a resulting “default judgment or dismissal.” Such a “default” means only a defendant’s failure to answer a complaint and a “default judgment” means only a judgment entered after such failure; so, too, then, “dismissal” must be the procedural equivalent of such a default—i.e., a plaintiff failing to respond to a dismissal motion; Second, section 473(b)’s history: The Legislature, as a matter of fairness, amended the mandatory provision of section 473(b) to add “dismissal,” so as to put plaintiffs on equal footing with defendants who are defaulted for failing to respond to an action (see Historical and Statutory Notes, 15 West’s Ann. Code Civ. Proc. (2014 supp.) foil. § 473, p. 25); And, third, the need to harmonize section 473(b)’s mandatory relief with the discretionary dismissal delay statutes (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.410 et seq.): Since nearly every discretionary dismissal—for example, failure to timely serve a complaint, or failure to timely bring a case to trial—is caused by the mistake, inadvertence or neglect of the plaintiff’s attorney, a broad reading of section 473(b)’s mandatory relief provision involving dismi”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“to read the mandatory provision of ... section 473 to apply whenever a party loses his or her day in court due to attorney error goes far beyond anything the Legislature has done.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The determination of whether the mandatory provision of section 473(b) applies to summary judgments is a task of statutory construction.”
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.