Barham v. Barham’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 188 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 213 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2012 · most notably 69 Cal. 2d 33 - Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co. (1968), United States v. Gilmore (1963)
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 188 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 Pereira v. Pereira · Puckett v. Puckett · Adams v. Adams · 29 Cal. 2d 95 - Woodbine v. Van Horn · 13 Cal. 2d 158 - Long Beach Drug Co. v. United Drug Co.
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 213 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A contract must receive such interpretation as will make it lawful, operative, definite, reasonable, and capable of being carried into effect, if that can be done without violating the intention of the parties. (Civ. Code, §§ 1643, 3541; see Rest., Contracts, § 236 (a).) When the language used is fairly susceptible to one of two constructions, extrinsic evidence may be considered, not to vary or modify the terms of the agreement but to aid the court in ascertaining the true intent of the parties (Central Heights Improvement Co. v. Memorial Parks, Inc., 40 Cal.App.2d 591, 608 [ 105 P.2d 596 ]), not to show that ‘the parties meant something other than what they said’ but to show ‘what they meant by what they said’ {Barnhart Aircraft, Inc. v. Preston, 212 Cal. 19, 23 [ 297 P. 20 ]). Where any doubt exists as to the purport of the parties’ dealings as expressed in the wording of their contract, the court may look to the circumstances surrounding its execution—including the object, nature and subject matter of the agreement {Wachs v. Wachs, 11 Cal.2d 322, 326 [ 79 P.2d 1085 ]) . . (Emphasis included.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Where any doubt exists as to the purport of the parties’ dealings as expressed in the wording of their contract, the court may look to the circumstances surrounding its execution—including the object, nature and subject matter of the agreement (Wachs v. Wachs, 11 Cal.2d 322, 326 [ 79 P.2d 1085 ])—as well as to the subsequent acts or declarations of the parties ‘shedding light upon the question of their mutual intention at the time of contracting ’ (Lemm v. Stillwater Land & Cattle Co., 217 Cal. 474, 481 [ 19 P.2d 785 ]). To this latter point, it is said that ‘a construction given the contract by the acts and conduct of the parties with knowledge of its terms, before any controversy has arisen as to its meaning, is entitled to great weight and will, when reasonable, be adopted and enforced by the court.’ (Woodbine v. Van Horn, 29 Cal.2d 95, 104 [ 173 P.2d 17 ]; see, also, 20 Am.Jur. § 1144, p. 998.)””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The divorce having been granted to plaintiff on the ground of defendant's extreme cruelty, it was within the discretion of the trial court to award her as the innocent spouse all of the community property. [Citations.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. La Vigne v. La Vigne
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.