Line v. Line’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1984
5 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. App. 648 - Reed Orchard Co. v. Superior Court · Loveren v. Loveren · 41 Cal. App. 452 - Farrar v. Farrar · Dixon v. Dixon · Mudd v. Mudd
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Such a defaulting appellant must confine his attack to the consideration of jurisdiction or of the sufficiency of the pleadings. ( Reed Orchard Co. v. Superior Court (1912), 19 Cal.App. 648 , 662 [ 128 P. 9 , 18]; *Page 831 Crackel v. Crackel (1911), 17 Cal.App. 600 [ 121 P. 295 ]; San Gabriel Valley Bank v. Lake View Town Co. (1906), 4 Cal.App. 630 , 633 [ 89 P. 360 ]; Lester v. Beer (1946), 74 Cal.App. 2 d Supp. 984, 987 [ 168 P.2d 998 ].)”
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.