Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 95 Cal. App. 144 - Brooks v. Nelson

95 Cal. App. 144 - Brooks v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis

1928

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
1
states following
February 1986
most recently cited

33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently February 1986 · most notably 155 Cal. App. 3d 381 - Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc. (1984), 16 Cal. 2d 645 - Beard v. Beard (1940)

33 state decisions

1201928193019401950196019701980decided

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 Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. King Land & Improvement Co. · Waite v. Southern Pacific Co. · Christerson v. French · Savage v. Smith · Nicoll v. Weldon

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

  1. ““A defendant against whom a default has been entered is out of court and is not entitled to take any further steps in the cause affecting plaintiff’s right of action; he cannot thereafter, until such default is set aside in a proper proceeding, file pleadings or move for a new trial, or demand notice of subsequent proceedings. (Title Ins. Co. v. King Land Co., supra; Christerson v. French, 180 Cal. 523 [ 182 Pac. 27 ]; Lunnun v. Morris, 7 Cal. App. 710 [ 95 Pac. 907 ]; Green v. Rogers, 18 Cal. App. 572 [ 123 Pac. 974 ].) If the judgment were vacated it would be the duty of the court immediately to render another judgment of like effect, and the defendants, still being in default, could not be heard in opposition thereto. (Title Ins. Co. v. King Land Co., supra.)” (See, also, Bunt, Mirk & Co., Inc., v. Hesperides Min. Co., 200 Cal. 382 [ 253 Pac. 317 ].)”
    2 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.