Greif v. Dullea’s Empirical Analysis
1944
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 82 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently December 2007 · most notably Bruszewski v. United States (1950), 53 Cal. 2d 236 - City & County of San Francisco v. Superior Court (1959)
3 federal appellate · 82 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 19 Cal. 2d 807 - Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving Association · 16 Cal. 2d 516 - Bank of California v. Superior Court · 13 Cal. 2d 75 - Drummey v. State Board of Funeral Directors & Embalmers · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Schmidt · Lindell Co. v. Board of Permit Appeals of San Francisco
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ [10] The Board of Permit Appeals of the City and County of San Francisco may take notice of the existence and contents of permit and license ordinances as part of its function to review the acts of departments authorized to issue, grant or deny licenses or permits. . . . “[11] . . '. The status of the San Francisco Board of Permit Appeals has been established. In Lindell Co. v. Board of Permit Appeals, 23 Cal.2d 303 [ 144 P.2d 4 ], an original proceeding in mandamus to compel the board to cancel its action in overruling the issuance of certain permits and to .reinstate the permits and affirm the action of another board, the court held (p. 310): . that the remedy of mandate is not available to control the exercise of official discretion or judgment, or to alter or review action taken in the proper exercise of such discretion or judgment.’ The opinion (p. 311)- states: ‘This comprehensive language affecting the issuance of all permits sought under authority of the relevant San Francisco Charter and ordinance provisions in plain terms vests the granting power with a “sound discretion” _ generally. ’ The opinion then considered the plan of appeal from departmental agencies. At page 313 it was further said: ‘ Section 39 of the San Francisco Charter creates the Board of Permit Appeals as the reviewing agency here concerned and defines its powers, duties and jurisdiction. ’ It was then held that the claim that the Board of Permit Appeals was confined to a determination of whether ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The use of the word 'cancel' was ill advised and unfortunate in that it has afforded ostensible ground for this litigation.”
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.