111 Cal. App. 634 - Sharp v. E. D. Leavitt & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1931
Citation profile
1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
May 1936
most recently cited
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 75 Cal. App. 353 - Filarski v. Covey · 53 Cal. App. 259 - Ackerman v. Channel Commercial Co.
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We have quoted heretofore substantially the provisions of the bond in question, which follows the requirements of the act, and it is sufficient to say that the conditions required to be in the bond are tied directly into transactions under the act, which the lot deal is not. ‘ Strict compliance with the provisions of this act,’ ‘faithful and honest performance of all obligations and undertakings in the purchase or sale of securities’, ‘payment of all damages suffered by any person damaged or defrauded by reason of the violation of any of the provisions of this act or by reason of any fraud connected with or growing out of any transaction contemplated by the provisions of this act’, is the language used, and the lot deal could not by any stretch of the imagination be held to be within the provisions of the act or a violation of any of them, or to be a transaction ‘ contemplated by the provisions’ of the act.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Betzer v. Olney
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.