118 Cal. App. 131 - Wake Development Co. v. O'Leary’s Empirical Analysis
1931
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently October 1974
12 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 Brumagim v. Tillinghast · 10 Cal. App. 746 - Standard Box Co. v. Mutual Biscuit Co. · Vesper v. Crane Co. · Burke v. Gould · 20 Cal. App. 708 - McTigue v. Arctic Ice Cream Supply 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““What constitutes the compulsion or coercion which the law recognizes as sufficient to render a payment involuntary is often a question of difficulty. It may be said in general that there must be some actual or threatened exercise of power possessed, or supposed to be possessed, by the party exacting or receiving the payment, over the person or property of the party making the payment from which the latter has no other means of immediate relief than by advancing the money. (Bucknall v. Story, 46 Cal. 589 [ 13 Am.Rep. 220 ].) ””
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.