Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 77 Cal. App. 2d 372 - Hambrick v. Hambrick

77 Cal. App. 2d 372 - Hambrick v. Hambrick’s Empirical Analysis

1946

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
1
states following
September 1962
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 1962 · most notably Yarbrough v. Yarbrough (1956), 92 Cal. App. 2d 343 - Gregory v. Gregory (1949)

24 state decisions

140194619501960decided

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 Waybright v. Anderson · Brill v. Fox · 35 Cal. App. 2d 685 - Stub v. Harrison · 16 Cal. 2d 645 - Beard v. Beard · Weinberger v. Manning

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

  1. ““The legal principles underlying the granting of motions to set aside defaults are comparatively simple, and have been frequently announced by this court. The question is primarily one within the discretion of the trial court, but this discretion is not capricious or arbitary, but it is an impartial discretion guided and controlled in its exercise by fixed legal principles. “ ‘It is not a mental discretion, to be exercised ex gratia, but a legal discretion, to be exercised in conformity with the spirit of the law, and in a maner to subserve and not to impede or defeat the ends of substantial justice.’ (Citing eases.) It is also well settled that it is the policy of the law to bring about a trial on the merits wherever possible, so that any doubts which may exist should be resolved in favor of the application, to the end of securing a trial upon the merits. (Citing eases.) Although it is true that courts of appeal have shown great reluctance in cases of this kind to disturb the order of the trial court, it is equally true that denials of such relief by the trial court are scanned more carefully than cases where the trial court has granted the relief, to the end that wherever possible cases may be heard on their merits. (Citing eases.)””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““ ‘As has been said repeatedly: “. . . An appellate court, owing to the remedial character of the statute and the policy of applying it liberally to permit an opportunity to present a substantial defense, listens more readily to an appeal from an order denying relief than to one granting relief. ...” (Citing cases.) “ ‘Even in a case where the showing under section 473 is not strong, or where there is any doubt as to the setting aside of a default, such doubt should be resolved in favor of the application (14 Cal.Jur. p. 1076.) ’ (See, also, McBlain v. McBlain, 77 Cal. 507, 509 [ 20 P. 61 ]; Wadsworth v. Wadsworth, 81 Cal. 182, 183 [ 22 P. 648 , 15 Am.St.Rep. 38 ]; Landon v. Landon, 74 Cal.App.2d 954, 958 [ 169 P.2d 980 .)””
    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.