Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 160 Cal. 649 - Pearson v. McKinney

Pearson v. McKinney’s Empirical Analysis

1911

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
5
states following
July 2007
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently July 2007

17 state decisions

701911192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Stewart v. . Stone · Dexter v. . Norton · Pierce v. Lukens · McMillan v. Fox · B. N. Scribner & Co. v. Schenkel

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

  1. “Where one makes an unqualified agreement to sell goods to be delivered at a fixed time, or on demand of the buyer within a stated period, and it is inherently possible to obtain the goods, the fact that the seller may have expected to manufacture the goods himself, or to procure them from a certain source, and has not been able to complete or obtain them when delivery is due, does not excuse performance. In that event, his contract being unconditional and unqualified, he must go into the market if necessary and obtain the goods, and he will be liable in damages for nondelivery.”
    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.