Nelson v. Schoettgen’s Empirical Analysis
1934
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently August 1977
8 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 Quatman v. McCray · 121 Cal. App. 533 - Murphy v. Sheftel · McNeece v. Wood · 124 Cal. App. 259 - Booth v. County of Los Angeles · 95 Cal. App. 327 - Mazuran v. Stefanich
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Forfeitures are not favored by the courts, and if an agreement can be reasonably interpreted so as to avoid a forfeiture, it is the duty of the court to avoid it. The burden is upon the party claiming a forfeiture to show that such was the unmistakable intention of the instrument. (Quatman v. McCray, 128 Cal. 285 [ 60 P. 855 ]; McNeece v. Wood, 204 Cal. 280 [ 267 P. 877 ]; 6 Cal.Jur. 362.) 'A contract is not to be construed to provide a forfeiture unless no other interpretation is reasonably possible.' (Hansen v. D'Artenay, 121 Cal.App. 746 [ 9 P.2d 889 ]; McPherson v. Empire Gas & Fuel Co., 122 Cal.App. 466 [ 10 P.2d 146 ]; Booth v. Los Angeles County, 124 Cal.App. 259 [ 12 P.2d 72 ].)”
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.