Muktarian v. Barmby’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably 149 Cal. App. 3d 696 - Lichty v. Sickels (1983), Cooper v. Allustiarte (1986)
45 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 Berniker v. Berniker · 53 Cal. 2d 195 - Leeper v. Beltrami · Newport v. Hatton · Kenney v. Parks · 103 Cal. App. 2d 651 - Turner v. Milstein
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In many instances one in possession would not know of dormant adverse claims of persons not in possession. Moreover, even if ... the party in possession knows of such a potential claimant, there is no reason to put him to the expense and inconvenience of litigation until such a claim is pressed against him.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in holding that the three-year statute of limitations governing actions based on fraud or mistake bars his action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. 4.) Since there is no statute of limitations governing quiet title actions as such, it is ordinarily necessary to refer to the underlying theory of relief to determine which statute applies. (See, e.g., Leeper v. Beltrami, 53 Cal.2d 195, 214 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 12 , 347 P.2d 12 , 77 A.L.R.2d 803 ] [relief dependent on rescission of a contract, rule requiring prompt action applies]; Kenney v. Parks, 137 Cal. 527, 530 [ 70 P. 556 ] [nondelivery of deed, Code, Civ. Proc., §318 applies; failure of trust condition, Code Civ. Proe., § 343 applies]; Estate of Pieper, 224 Cal.App.2d 670, 689 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 46 ] [nondelivery of deed, Code Civ. Proc., § 343 applies] ; Turner v. Milstein, 103 Cal.App.2d 651, 657-659 [ 230 P.2d 25 ] [extrinsic fraud, Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. 4, applies].) In the present case, however, it is unnecessary to determine which statute would otherwise apply, for no statute of limitations runs against a plaintiff seeking to quiet title while he is in possession of the property. (Smith v. Matthews, 81 Cal. 120, 121 [ 22 P. 409 ]; Faria v. Bettencourt, 100 Cal.App. 49, 51-52 [ 279 P. 679 ] ; 1 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (1954) Actions, § 111, p. 613; 41 Cal.Jur.2d, Quieting Title, Etc., § 25, p. 493: see Newport v. Hatton, 195 Cal. 132, 145 [ 231 P. 987 ] ; Sears v. County of Cal”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“it is ordinarily necessary to refer to the underlying theory of relief to determine which [limitation] statute applies,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bangerter v. Petty
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.