64 Cal. App. 362 - Westervelt v. McCullough’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 state decisions

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

1. ““An order denying a motion made under section 663 is unquestionably a special order made after final judgment, and as such is appealable under section 963.—unless there be some good reason for holding otherwise. Because in section 663a the legislature expressly provided that an order granting such a motion may be reviewed on appeal in the same manner as a special order made after final judgment, respondent argues that, under the familiar rule of construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, it should be held that the lawmakers did not intend that there should be a right of appeal from an order denying the motion. To sup port this view respondent cites Modoc Co-operative Assn. v. Porter, 11 Cal. App. 270 [ 104 Pac. 710 ]. It is true that certain dicta may be found in the opinion in that case which seem to give color to respondent’s contention; but since that case was decided our supreme court has stated unequivocally that an order denying a motion made under section 663 is appealable under section 963, as a special order made after final judgment. (Bond v. United Railroads, 159 Cal. 270 [Ann. Cas. 1912C, 50, 48 L. R A. (N. S.) 687, 113 Pac. 366 ]; Condon v. Donohoe, 160 Cal. 749 [ 118 Pac. 113 ].) The rule thus announced is binding here.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 85 Cal. App. 320 - Gittelson v. Gandolfo