Lerma v. Flores’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 state decisions

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

1. ““Whatever the rule where there is no express agreement to render services in return for transportation, which appears to have been the fact in the case cited, where it is agreed that one of the parties shall be carried in consideration of the rendition of services of the kind here alleged, the benefit conferred was sufficient to support a contract of carriage, and was compensation excluding the passenger from the operation of section 141% of the California Vehicle Act (added by Stats. 1929, p. 1580, as amended by Stats.1931, p. 1693). The consideration may be any benefit conferred or any detriment suffered (Civ.Code, sec. 1605), and the law will not enter into an inquiry as to its adequacy. Whelan v. Swain, 132 Cal. 389 , 64 P. 560 ; Rusconi v. California Fruit Exchange, 100 Cal.App. 750, 754 , 281 P. 84 ; Seth v. Lew Hing, 125 Cal.App. 729 , 14 P.2d 537 , 15 P.2d 190 ; Marsh v. Lott, 8 Cal.App. 384, 389 , 97 P. 163 ; Williston, Contracts (2d Ed.) sec. 115. Moreover, where the consideration agreed has been accepted the acceptance constitutes a waiver of any claim of inadequacy (Nicholson v. Tarpey, 70 Cal. 608 , 12 P. 778 ) ; and the rule applies to the acceptance of services bargained for even though valueless in fact. Peters v. Binnard, 219 Cal. 141 , 25 P.2d 834 ."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nyberg v. Kirby