Cheney v. Trauzettel’s Empirical Analysis
1937
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 64 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably 10 Cal. 3d 616 - Green v. Superior Court (1974), 20 Cal. 3d 251 - Vella v. Hudgins (1977)
3 federal appellate · 64 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 Arnold v. Krigbaum · Ashton v. Heydenfeldt · 69 Cal. App. 40 - Bekins v. Trull · 131 Cal. App. 439 - Hewitt v. Justice's Court · 134 Cal. App. 278 - Nineteenth Realty Co. v. Diggs
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The trial court properly held that in the summary proceeding in unlawful detainer the right to possession alone was involved, and the broad question of title could not be raised and litigated by cross-complaint or affirmative defense. [Citations.] It is true that where the purchaser at a trustee’s sale proceeds under section 1161a of the Code of Civil Procedure he must prove his acquisition of title by purchase at the sale; but it is only to this limited extent, as provided by the statute, that the title may be litigated in such a proceeding. [Citations.] “... Irrespective of the merits of the defenses raised by the answer, the alleged equitable grounds of attack on plaintiff’s title have no place in the present summary proceeding, for if such issues are permissible, the proceeding entirely loses its summary character. In our opinion the plaintiff need only prove a sale in compliance with the statute and deed of trust, followed by purchase at such sale, and the defendant may raise objections only on that phase of the issue of title. Matters affecting the validity of the trust deed or primary obligation itself, or other basic defects in the plaintiff’s title are neither properly raised in this summary proceeding for possession, nor are they concluded by the judgment.” (See also Kartheiser v. Superior Court, 174 Cal.App.2d 617 [345 P.2d 135] ; Cruce v. Stein, 146 Cal.App.2d 688 [ 304 P.2d 118 ]; Abrahamer v. Parks, 141 Cal.App.2d 85 [ 296 P.2d 343 ] ; Freeze v. Salot, 122 Cal.”
3 later decisions 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.