Stromerson v. Averill’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 118 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 124 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co. (1945), Berniker v. Berniker (1947)
6 federal appellate · 118 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 Sheehan v. Sullivan · Couts v. Winston · Steinberger v. Young · Wehle v. Price · Taylor v. Bunnell
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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Inconsistencies only affect the credibility of the witness or reduce the weight of his testimony and it was for the trier of the fact ic. w*.->¿h the evidence and determine his credibility. 10 Cal.Jur. p. 1146, § 364. Furthermore, it is the duty of the court in support of a judgment on appeal to harmonize apparent inconsistencies wherever possible. 2 Cal.Jur. p. 938, § 551. It might also be noted that the testimony of Averill was supported by many circumstances and corroborated in important particulars by Davis, Lincoln and others. In our opinion there was substantial evidence to sustain the finding that Stromerson was acting as Averill’s agent in the purchase of the 562 acres of land. “It is contended, however, that since the judgment is based upon constructive fraud the facts which are relied upon to establish the fraud must be proved by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence. The sufficiency of evidence to establish a given fact, where the law requires proof of the fact to be clear and convincing, is primarily a question for the trial court to determine, and if there is substantial evidence to support its conclusion, the determination is not open to review on appeal. Steiner v. Amsel, 18 Cal.2d 48, 53, 54 , 112 P.2d 635 ; Steinberger v. Young, 175 Cal. 81, 84, 85 , 165 P. 432 ; Couts v. Winston, 153 Cal. 686, 688, 689 , 96 P. 357 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““It is also contended that the statute of frauds bars recovery by Averill. A constructive trust which is created by operation of law need not be in writing. (Civ. Code, § 852.) ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding should be considered by the appellate court in the light of that rule.”
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.