Shaver v. Clanton’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
12 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 6 Cal. 3d 920 - Nestle v. City of Santa Monica · Wong v. Di Grazia · Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Bruken Realty Corp. · Harter v. City of San Jose · 231 Cal. App. 3d 1450 - McLarand, Vasquez & Partners, Inc. v. Downey Savings & Loan Ass'n
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[lt makes no sense to apply a rule based on family-oriented donative transfers to interests created by contract.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"It makes no sense to apply a rule based on family-oriented donative transfers to interests created by contract whose nature is determined by negotiations between the parties." [See Recommendation Relating to Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities, 20 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep. (1990) 2501, 2516.] "The rationale for this exclusion is that the rule against perpetuities is a wholly inappropriate instrument of social policy to use as a control over such arrangements. The period of the rule a life in being plus 21 years is not suitable for nondonative transfers. ..." (1991 Addition to Law Revision Com. Com., 54A West's Ann.Prob.Code § 21225 (1994 pocket supp.) p. 60....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the purpose of the rule against perpetuities was found to be inapt to commercial arrangements”
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.