Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 191 Cal. App. 2d 474 - Golem v. Fahey

191 Cal. App. 2d 474 - Golem v. Fahey’s Empirical Analysis

1961

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
December 2005
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 2005

4 state decisions

2019611970198019902000decided

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 Estrada v. Alvarez · Hannah v. Steinman · Kelley v. Owens · 124 Cal. App. 2d 831 - Gedstad v. Ellichman · 127 Cal. App. 2d 607 - Williams v. Smith

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

  1. “If an effectual prohibition against a wooden building on this lot had been imposed by the terms of a prior conveyance, and this lease had been given and received in ignorance of the existence thereof, it would probably not be questioned that the mistake would be of such a nature as to enable the lessee to rescind, the prohibition amounting to a practical and material impairment of the estate contemplated by the parties. Here we have practically the same result because of an ordinance of the city of which the parties were ignorant. We cannot believe that the equitable rules relative to mistake should be so narrowly construed as to require us to hold that this mistake did not go to the very essence of the contract between these parties.”
    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.