Crofoot v. Weger’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently November 2001 · most notably 23 Cal. App. 4th 174 - Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (1994), Bisno v. Sax (1959)
6 federal appellate · 24 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 37 Cal. 2d 16 - Freedman v. Rector, Wardens & Vestrymen of St. Matthias Parish · Barkis v. Scott · Baffa v. Johnson · 33 Cal. 2d 213 - Gonzalez v. Hirose · El Rio Oils Ltd. v. Chase
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . As said by the court in Barkis v. Scott, supra [ 34 Cal.2d 116 ], ‘Section 3275 presupposes that the party seeking relief is in default. . . . ’ Likewise the trial court could have found that the loss suffered by the appellants when the respondents terminated the contract was a forfeiture or a loss in the nature of a forfeiture, and such findings, coupled with findings that the breach was neither wilful nor the product of gross negligence would have made proper a reinstatement of the contract upon equitable conditions, if that were still possible, and if not then the recovery by the appellants of such amounts of the payments made as lay within the area of forfeiture. “In addition to the foregoing, if the court had found that the breach was wilful or grossly negligent so as to prevent equitable relief under section 3275 of the Civil Code there was still the duty of the court to go further and find whether or not the termination of the contract by the respondents for the appellants’ default resulted in the unjust enrichment of the respondents. If such were the result then it would have been the duty of the court to give judgment for so much of the funds paid in as constituted unjust enrichment. (Freedman v. Rector, W. & V. of St. Matthias Parish, supra [ 37 Cal.2d 16 ( 230 P.2d 629 )].) ... It is apparent that a situation was portrayed by the evidence which would have justified findings of unjust enrichment if relief could not be given through reinstatement of the contra”
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.