Schulz v. Peake’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently May 2007
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 15 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 Frank v. Butte & Boulder Mining & Lumber Co. · Danielson v. Danielson · Bullard v. Smith · Anderson v. Applebury · Cowan v. Westland Realty 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] contract must be so interpreted as to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting, so far as the same is ascertainable and lawful.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is the court's duty to enforce it as made by the parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.