35 Cal. 2d 822 - Mayers v. Loew's, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently September 2014 · most notably Harm v. Frasher (1960), 39 Cal. 2d 407 - Decter v. Stevenson Properties, Inc. (1952)
11 federal appellate · 26 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 20 Cal. 2d 751 - Universal Sales Corp. v. California Press Manufacturing Co. · Tuso v. Green · Burr v. Western States Life Insurance · 63 Cal. App. 2d 555 - Body-Steffner Co. v. Flotill Products, Inc. · Union Oil Co. v. Union Sugar 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The agreements in the present case are ambiguous and internally inconsistent. ... [Here the court describes the ambiguities and inconsistencies] ... The terms of the agreement furnish no clear answer to these questions. It is thus apparent that the contract is not clear on its face, and under the theory of the parol evidence rule that has been accepted by the majority of this court, evidence of the negotiations of the parties and of surrounding circumstances was admissible for the purpose of determining the meaning of the contractual provisions. (Universal Sales Corp. v. California Press Mfg. Co., 20 Cal.2d 751, 761-762 [ 128 P.2d 665 ]; California Canning Peach Growers v. Williams, 11 Cal.2d 221, 228-229 [ 78 P.2d 1154 ]; Merkeley v. Fisk, 179 Cal. 748, 757 [ 178 P. 945 ]; see Union Oil Co. v. Union Sugar Co., 31 Cal.2d 300, 306, 307 [ 188 P.2d 470 ]; Body-Steffner Co. v. Flotill Products, 63 Cal.App.2d 555, 561-562 [ 147 P.2d 84 ]; Torrey v. Shea, 29 Cal.App. 313, 316-317 [ 155 P. 820 ]; Code Civ. Proc., 1860; Civ. Code, 1647.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“'Where two or more written instruments are executed contemporaneously, with reference to the other, for the purpose of attaining a preconceived object, they must all be construed together, and effect given if possible to the purpose to be accomplished.' [Citations.] Since the purpose of the agreements may be ascertained only by reference to each of the documents executed to accomplish that purpose, it was error to exclude any of those documents from consideration.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“contracts [instruments] relating to the same matters, between the same parties, and made as parts of substantially one transaction,”
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.