Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 636 P2D 1082 - Szarak v. Sandoval

Szarak v. Sandoval’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
November 1993
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 269 Cal. App. 2d 680 - Van Buskirk v. Todd · Scott Ex Rel. Scott v. School Board of Granite School District · Thut v. Grant · Brown v. Marrelli · 27 Utah 2d 79 - State v. Judd

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

  1. “A minor is incapable of giving notice by ... virtue of his minority, nor may he bring an action in his own behalf while a minor. He simply has no standing by statute and an action by or against a minor requires the appointment of a guardian ad litem. The parents, or natural guardians, have no specific legal duty to perform and have no responsibility to their minor off-spring other than their moral obligation. Consequently, in matters of this kind, when a parent, [or] natural guardian, fails for one reason or another to give notice, file suit, or otherwise protect the minor’s legal interests, the minor is left completely without a remedy. This was undoubtedly one of the prime considerations which prompted the legislature to toll the statute during the minority of a claimant against municipalities. Their reason for not so providing in governmental immunity cases as we are faced with here is entirely unclear. However, the general legislative intent to protect the causes of action is abundantly clear by said amendment and the specific provision of the general statute of limitations.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Viewed from the defendant’s perspective, this long extension of the period of his (the alleged father’s) vulnerability to this kind of action obviously runs counter to the policies served by' the statutes of limitation, but the legislature has resolved the conflicting policies in favor of the interests of the minor child and those who support him, § 78-12-36, and we are obliged to follow their clear direction.”
    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.