Stock v. Meek’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 federal appellate · 6 district · 60 state decisions

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

1. ““Plaintiff brought this action to rescind the purchase from defendants, husband and wife, of space in a cooperatively-owned apartment house and to recover the amount she had paid defendants therefor. Defendants counterclaimed for interest that they had paid plaintiff on a usurious loan. “Early in 1945 defendants purchased the Palace Apartment Hotel in Long Beach. They intended to sell the forty-six apartments to purchasers on an ‘ own-your-own’ plan. An escrow and trust were set up to convey title to purchasers, to pay expenses, and to distribute any profits. . . . “In a separate transaction, plaintiff purchased a nonresidential part of the apartment house, called ‘ Space 101’ by the parties. She paid defendant Glenn L. Meek $9,000 for the ‘ exclusive and permanent right of occupancy, ’ as described in the Certificate of Beneficial Ownership issued by the trustee, Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles. The record does not disclose what use plaintiff intended to make of the space. Plaintiff alleged, however, that defendant had represented to her that the space could be ‘used and owned exclusively’ after the lobby of the building had been completed, and that she had purchased the space in reliance on this representation. Plaintiff alleged that when the work on the lobby was completed, she discovered that no one could obtain the exclusive and permanent occupancy of the space because of the building and fire regulations of the city of Long Beach. Plaintiff thereafter gave p”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stock v. Meek

2. ““Extrinsic evidence to show mistake or fraud is admissible. Section 238 of the Restatement of Contracts states the general rule: ‘agreements prior to or contemporaneous with an integration are admissible in evidence: (b) to prove facts rendering the agreement void or voidable for illegality, fraud, duress, mistake or insufficiency of consideration.’ This court has approved the admission of extrinsic evidence to show a mistake of law by the grantor of a quitclaim deed, taken advantage of by the grantee. (Jersey Farm Co. v. Atlanta Realty Co., 164 Cal. 412 [ 129 P. 593 ].) ‘It is, of course, true that where an instrument is sought to be avoided for fraud or for mistake in law or in fact, evidence is admissible as to what the grantor intended to do or to convey.’ (Citing cases.) Since the testimony by plaintiff should not have been excluded either as a variance or under the parol evidence rule, the trial court erred in its ruling. This error precluded plaintiff from presenting her case for recovery and requires reversal of the judgment for defendants in plaintiff’s action for rescission.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Richard v. Baker

3. ““The Usury Law provides that any person who pays interest at a usurious rate may recover treble the amount paid, ‘ providing such action shall be brought within one year after such payment or delivery. ’ It is settled that this section did not abrogate any common law rights of borrowers as parties to an illegal contract, but merely added a statutory remedy to aid the borrower and penalize the lender. (Westman v. Dye, 214 Cal. 28 [ 4 P.2d 134 ]; Taylor v. Budd, 217 Cal. 262 [ 18 P.2d 333 ].) Borrowers may therefore bring an action for money had and received to recover usurious interest paid within two years of the suit. (Babcock v. Olhasso, 109 Cal.App. 534 [ 293 P. 141 ]; Code Civ. Proc., § 339(1).) Since the overpayment occurred on January 12, 1946, and the complaint was filed March 26, 1947, defendants are not barred from setting up a counterclaim to recover the interest. (Jones v. Mortimer, 28 Cal.2d 627, 633 [ 170 P.2d 893 ].)””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 114 Cal. App. 2d 713 - Goodwin v. Alston