Fisher v. Eckert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 31 state decisions

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

1. “"Since the dismissal became a judgment and was entered in the clerk’s register on October 20, the next question is whether defendants had notice of such entry, within the meaning of section 1033, supra. It is plaintiffs’ argument that the presence of counsel for defendants in the court and under the circumstances related was sufficient notice of such entry. Defendants’ counsel argues otherwise and maintains that defendants never did have notice of the entry of the dismissal in the clerk’s register. It is true that written notice of such entry is not required where there is actual notice of such entry. (Dow v. Ross, 90 Cal. 562 [ 27 P. 409 ] ; Mullally v. Irish-American Benevolent Soc., 69 Cal. 559 [ 11 P. 215 ] ; O’Neil v. Donohue, 57 Cal. 226 .) “It is clear from the proceedings had that defendants did have actual notice that plaintiffs had filed with the clerk a dismissal of the action and that the trial court acted upon such dismissal by excusing the jury from further attendance. However, there is no showing that the clerk at that time had entered such dismissal on her register. In fact, the entry of such dismissal on the register could have been delayed for several days without defendants’ knowledge and the time for filing such cost bill would not have run until defendants had notice of such entry. (Hauptman v. Heebner, 34 Cal. App.2d 600 [ 94 P.2d 48]; King v. Superior Court, supra, at p. 508 [ 12 Cal.App.2d 501 ( 56 P.2d 268 )].) It appears that defendants did not have ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 137 Cal. App. 2d 148 - Davis Lumber Co. v. Hubbell

2. ““While plaintiffs in this action may not have intended such result, nevertheless counsel for plaintiffs was presumed to know the law which required the dismissal to be filed ‘with prejudice ’ at the time it was filed, and that any other form of dismissal by plaintiff at that time would be improper under the statute. ’ ’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 243 Cal. App. 2d 142 - Hehr v. Swendseid

3. ““Plaintiff did dismiss it, and without an order of the court, by filing a dismissal thereof with the clerk at a time when plaintiffs alone were not authorized by section 581 of the Code of Civil Procedure to dismiss the action in any other manner than ‘with prejudice.’ ” (Italics added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 243 Cal. App. 2d 142 - Hehr v. Swendseid