Berry v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis

1950

Citation profile

cited by 28 later decisions

states following

June 1997

most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently June 1997 · most notably 105 Cal. App. 2d 623 - Slaughter v. Zimman (1951), 256 Cal. App. 2d 725 - Roth v. Keene (1967)

28 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 52 Cal. App. 2d 217 - Zeigler v. Bonnell · 66 Cal. App. 2d 147 - Postin v. Griggs · 54 Cal. App. 2d 136 - Bendlage v. Kohlsaat · Lawrence v. Johnson

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

““Since respondent has not filed a brief we assume that (1) the facts as stated in appellant’s brief are true, (2) the evidence is insufficient to support material findings of fact of the trial court, and (3) respondent has abandoned any attempt to support the judgment, and that the ground urged by appellant for reversing the judgment is meritorious. (Postin v. Griggs, 66 Cal.App.2d 147, 148 [ 151 P.2d 887 ]; Zeigler v. Bonnell, 52 Cal.App.2d 217, 218 [ 126 P.2d 118 ]; Bendlage v. Kohlsaat, 54 Cal.App.2d 136 , 139 et seq. [ 128 P.2d 691 ]. Cf., Lawrence v. Johnson, 131 Cal. 175, 177 [ 63 P. 176 ].) “Applying the foregoing rule it is evident that if material findings of the trial court are not supported by the evidence the judgment should be reversed. ’ ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. Citizens National Trust & Savings Bank v. Scott

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.