Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 153 Cal. 735 - McCowen v. Pew

McCowen v. Pew’s Empirical Analysis

1908

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
4
states following
February 1992
most recently cited

1 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 1992

1 district · 8 state decisions

501908191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Oscanyan v. Arms Co. · Woodstock Iron Co. v. Richmond & Danville Extension Co. · Reed v. Johnson · Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. Sumner · Morrill v. Nightingale

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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “‘‘The trial court based its conclusion that the contract for the option was invalid from the allegations of the cross-complaint, which does not pretend to disclose anywhere that any public convenience or necessity was subverted by the contract. The court held, as a matter of law, that a contract giving an option to purchase certain lands as an inducement to the building of a line of railroad between certain points was void upon its face—or void per se. The courts, however, as we have seen, declare expressly to the contrary, and that such a contract, in the absence of any showing that public interest has suffered in its making, is valid and enforceable.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “' ‘ The error of the trial court was in holding as it necessarily did, that per se this contract was void as against such policy. A contract should not be declared in contravention of public policy unless it is apparent that it contravenes some public statute, or is against good morals, or that its tendency is to interfere with the public welfare or safety. Nothing of this character appears from the allegations of the cross-complaint.””
    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.