McArthur v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 state decisions

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

1. ““The note was an unconditional promise to pay money on demand. The parol evidence received was in direct contradiction of the express terms of said note. It tended to establish that said note was not payable on demand, but, on the contrary, was payable only out of a particular fund. Said evidence was not admissible. (Secs. 1856, Code Civ. Proc., and 1625, Civ. Code.) Said sections lay down rules of substantive law (Harding v. Robinson, 175 Cal. 534, 540 [ 166 P. 808 ]). Under conditions similar to those existing here, the principles of law involved have been applied to prevent the reception of parol evidence to contradict the terms of written instruments in a great variety of cases. In support of our holding we shall cite only a few decisions dealing with commercial paper: Brown v. Spofford, 95 U.S. 474 [ 24 L.Ed. 508 ]; San Jose Sav. Bank v. Stone, 59 Cal. 183 ; Cashman v. Harrison, 90 Cal. 297 [ 27 P. 283 ]; Leonard v. Miner, 120 Cal. 403 [ 52 P. 655 ]; Wright v. Shoenhair, 100 Cal.App. 163 [ 280 P. 174 ], Our case falls squarely within the rules announced and applied in said cases. ’ ’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 91 Cal. App. 2d 411 - Van Fleet-Durkee, Inc. v. Oyster