Bard v. Kent’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 64 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently October 2010 · most notably 51 Cal. 2d 409 - Drennan v. Star Paving Co. (1958), 71 Cal. 2d 719 - Southern California Acoustics Co. v. C. V. Holder, Inc. (1969)
5 federal appellate · 64 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 Williams v. Hasshagen · Tiffany & Co. v. Spreckels · 8 Cal. App. 450 - Hemenway v. Abbott · In Re the Estate of Thomson · 8 Cal. App. 384 - Marsh v. Lott
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But the consideration for a promise must be an act or a return promise, bargained for and given in exchange for the promise. (Bard v. Kent, 19 Cal.2d 449 [ 122 P.2d 8 , 139 A.L.R. 1032 ] ; Tiffany & Co. v. Spreckels, 202 Cal. 778 [ 262 P. 742 ]; Williams v. Hasshagen, 166 Cal. 386 [ 137 P. 9 ] ; Lasar v. Johnson, 125 Cal. 549 [ 58 P. 161 ]; Rest., Contracts, § 75; see Williston, Contracts; rev. ed.; §§ 61, 100, 102, 102a.) In the words of section 75 of the Restatement of Contracts (com. b) : ‘Consideration must actually be bargained for as the exchange for the promise . . . The existence or non-existence of a bargain where something has been parted with by the promisee or received by the promisor depends upon the manifested intention of the parties . . . The fact that the promisee relies on the promise to his injury, or the promisor gains some advantage therefrom, does not establish consideration without the element of bargain or agreed exchange.’ (Language approved in Bard v. Kent, supra, p. 452 .) ””
2 later decisions 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.