35 Cal. 2d 713 - Steiner v. Rowley’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 118 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 132 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Ward v. Taggart (1959), 40 Cal. 2d 317 - Faulkner v. California Toll Bridge Authority (1953)
10 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 27 Cal. 2d 840 - Lord v. Garland · Orloff v. Metropolitan Trust Co. · Haigler v. Donnelly · Clark v. McClurg · Goldwater v. Oltman
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 132 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Concerning the effect of the writ of attachment obtained by the Steiners, the doctrine of election of remedies is based upon the principle of estoppel. ‘Whenever a party entitled to enforce two remedies either institutes an action upon one of such remedies or performs any act in pursuit of such remedy, whereby he has gained an advantage over the other party, ... he will be held to have made an election of such remedy, and will not be entitled to pursue any other remedy for the enforcement of his right.’ (DeLaval Pac. Go. v. United C. & D. Co., 65 Cal.App. 584, 586 [ 224 P. 766 ].) . . . “An action for tort in which exemplary damages are sought is inconsistent with one for money had and received. (Civ. Code, § 3294.) The Steiners were therefore required to make a timely election of remedies. Pleading the two causes of action in the alternative did not constitute an election because inconsistent counts are permissible [citing cases] and an election cannot be forced by demurrer [citing case]. But the Steiners also obtained an attachment. This was a positive act of a plaintiff ‘in pursuit of . . . [the contractual remedy] . . . whereby he has gained . . . advantage over the other party. . . .’ (DeLaval Pac. Co. v. United C. D. Co., 65 Cal.App. 584, 586 [ 224 P. 766 ].) ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“whereby he has gained advantage over the other party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ward v. Taggart“subscribed by the party to be charged, or his agent”
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.