Johnston v. Landucci’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently May 2009 · most notably 29 Cal. 2d 95 - Woodbine v. Van Horn (1946), Fox-Greenwald Sheet Metal Co. v. Markowitz Bros. (1971)
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 59 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 Mitau v. Roddan · Kautz v. Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance · Portuguese-American Bank v. Welles · J. S. Potts Drug Co. v. Benedict · San Francisco Presbyterian Orphanage & Farm v. Hanson
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he overruling weight of authority in other jurisdictions is to the effect that provisions against assignment ... are for the benefit of the vendor only, and in no way affect the validity of an assignment without consent as between the assignor and assignee. In other words, the interest of the assignor in the contract passes to the assignee, subject to the rights of the original seller. Id. at 408.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is, of course, proper when a contractual provision is ambiguous, for the courts to look at the subsequent conduct of the parties to ascertain how they construed the provision in question. The contemporaneous and practical construction of a contract by the parties is strong evidence as to the meaning of equivocal provisions. [Citing cases.]””
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.