Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 38 CAL2D 458 - Hale v. Bohannon

Hale v. Bohannon’s Empirical Analysis

1952

Citation profile

156
cited by 156 later decisions
1
states following
January 2015
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 140 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 156 later decisions — most recently January 2015 · most notably Masterson v. Sine (1968), 55 Cal. 2d 857 - Stewart v. Cox (1961)

14 federal appellate · 140 state decisions

6101952196019701980199020002010decided

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 Andrews v. California Trust Co. · 13 Cal. 2d 620 - Jersey Maid Milk Products Co. v. Brock · Chesney v. Byram · Brady v. Times-Mirror Co. · McClung v. Watt

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

  1. ““A corporation or association may be sued in the county where the contract is made or is to be performed, or where the obligation or liability arises, or the breach occurs; or in the county where the principal place of business of such corporation is situated . . . .””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"When a defendant has contracted to perform an obligation in a particular county, either the county where such obligation is to be performed, or in which the contract in fact was entered into, or the county in which the defendant, or any such defendant, resides at the commencement of the action, shall be a proper county for the trial of an action founded on such obligation, and the county in which such obligation is incurred shall be deemed to be the county in which it is to be performed unless there is a special contract in writing to the contrary.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]he mere giving of a check does not constitute payment [citations] nor does the mere acceptance thereof raise a presumption that such acceptance constitutes payment. [Citation.] And since a check of itself is not payment until cashed the party attempting to prove payment by mere delivery or acceptance must go further and in addition prove that such delivery and acceptance was in accordance with an agreement that it was to be accepted as payment.”
    2 later decisions 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.