Sass v. Hank’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably 119 Cal. App. 2d 717 - Schmidt v. MacCo Construction Co. (1953), D. L. Godbey & Sons Construction Co. v. Deane (1952)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 38 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 Barham v. Barham · United Iron Works v. Outer Harbor Dock & Wharf Co. · 91 Cal. App. 2d 68 - Grant v. the Aerodraulics Co. · Barnhart Aircraft, Inc. v. Preston · Sistrom v. Anderson
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The mutual rescission or abrogation of a written contract may be effected by an oral agreement whether executed or not, in which event section 1698 of the Civil Code has no application. (Grant v. Aerodraulics Co., 91 Cal.App.2d 68, 75 [ 204 P.2d 683 ].) It is true, as appellants assert, that such agreement must be supported by a sufficient consideration, but such consideration is present here in the form of the mutual cancellation of executory contractual rights. When such is the case each party has suffered a legal detriment in giving up such rights and the consideration is adequate. (Grant v. Aerodraulics Co., supra, p. 76; Sistrom v. Anderson, 51 Cal.App.2d 213, 219 [ 124 P.2d 372 ]; Rest. Contracts, sec. 406.)””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“When an agreement has been thus reduced [to writing] the contractor has the right to rely strictly upon the written word. Before evidence of its meaning can be received it must first be determined by the court to be so ambiguous or uncertain that its meaning cannot be divined from its own language. The intention must `be ascertained from the writing alone, if possible.' Civil Code, sec. 1639.”
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.