Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 228 CALAPP2D 248 - Sexton v. Nelson

Sexton v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
4
states following
December 2003
most recently cited

2 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently December 2003

2 district · 16 state decisions

14019641970198019902000decided

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 Trubowitch v. Riverbank Canning Co. · People v. Klopstock · Chapman v. Great Western Gypsum Co. · McNeece v. Wood · 98 Cal. App. 690 - Weintraub v. Weingart

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

  1. “Plaintiff did not appeal from the judgment but, nevertheless, contends that the trial court erred in concluding that the lease was not terminated upon the failure of defendant to exercise the option to purchase the leased premises, the terms of which heretofore have been set forth; that, under the undisputed evidence and law in the premises, the lease terminated at the time plaintiff had an opportunity to sell the leased premises and the defendant, after notice of this fact, did not exercise his option to purchase; and, for this reason, the judgment declaring the lease terminated as of May 4, 1962 should be sustained. As heretofore noted, the plaintiffs contention is based upon the decision in Garetson v. Hester, 57 Cal.App.2d 39 , 133 P.2d 863 . However, the facts in the cited case are not analogous to those in the instant case and the decision therein is not applicable here. The option provision in the instant lease merely gave the lessee a first option to purchase in the event the lessors were able to sell “any part” of the ranch. It did not require the lessee to purchase, nor provide, expressly or by implication, that the lease should terminate upon a sale to another. The contention in question is without merit.”
    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.