Hobbs v. Weiss’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 5 Cal. 3d 536 - Randone v. Appellate Department · 19 Cal. 4th 1232 - Lewis v. Superior Court · Phillips-Hollman, Inc. v. Peerless Stages, Inc. · 66 Cal. App. 4th 257 - Mediterranean Constr. Co. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. · 166 Cal. App. 3d 1110 - Loeb & Loeb v. Beverly Glen Music, Inc.
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.
“Conducting a `hearing' out of eyeshot and earshot disserves the legislative balance for prejudgment attachment orders and does not [afford] ... a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Corporations may be invisible legal creatures, but judges should not be, especially in situations where their discretion can be exercised in more than one way.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“directly confront the judge who will rule on the right-to-attach order, explain their position, and address the judge's concerns.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“`pretrial matter[] of considerable significance to the parties,'”
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.