65 Cal. App. 420 - In Re Lake’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 58 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The scope of the inquiry which the court can make upon either habeas corpus or certiorari is precisely the same. (Ex parte Brew, 188 Cal. 717 [ 207 Pac. 249, 250 ]; Commercial Bank, etc., v. Superior Court, 192 Cal. 395 [220 Pac. 422, 423].) While neither writ is one of error, both extend to the entire record of the court below and to the evidence itself when necessary to determine jurisdiction. (Hotaling v. Superior Court, 191 Cal. 501 [ 217 Pac. 73, 75 , 29 A. L. R. 127].) This inquiry, of course, cannot go beyond the question of jurisdiction and the review of the evidence is limited to the sole purpose of determining, first, whether jurisdiction existed; and, second, whether jurisdiction was exceeded. Thus, where the question is whether jurisdictional facts were or were not proved, the review extends not only to the entire record but to the evidence itself. (Stumpf v. Board of Supervisors, 131 Cal. 364, 367 [ 63 Pac. 663 , 82 Am. St. Rep. 350 ] ; McClatchy v. Superior Court, 119 Cal. 413, 419 [ 51 Pac. 696 , 39 L. R. A. 691] ; Estate of Paulsen, 179 Cal. 528, 529, 530 [ 178 Pac. 143 ] ; Great Western Power Co. v. Pillsbury, 170 Cal. 180, 185 [ 149 Pac. 35 ] ; Van Hoosear v. Railroad Com., 189 Cal. 228 [ 207 Pac. 903, 907 ]; Hotaling v. Superior Court, 191 Cal. 501 [ 217 Pac. 73, 75 , 29 A. L. R. 127].) ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 16 Cal. App. 2d 709 - In Re Connolly

2. ““There is no deviation from the rule that unless the affidavit charging constructive contempt ‘contains a statement of facts which shows on its face that a contempt has been committed, the court is without jurisdiction to proceed in the matter and any judgment of contempt thereon is void. (5 Cal.Jur., pp. 938, 939.) . . . The proceeding being one of a criminal nature, a conviction of the offense can be supported only on a showing that the acts charged come within the definition of the offense. ’ ’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Clarke

3. ““The scope of the inquiry which the court can make upon either habeas corpus or certiorari is precisely the same. (Ex parte Drew, 188 Cal. 717 [ 207 Pac. 249, 250 ] ; Commercial Bank etc. v. Superior Court, 192 Cal. 395 [ 220 Pac. 422, 423 ].)””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wilde v. Superior Court