38 Cal. 3d 276 - Asdourian v. Araj’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 160 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 186 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior Court (1998), 36 Cal. 4th 412 - MW Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Ornamental & Metal Works Co. (2005)
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 160 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 35 Cal. 3d 131 - Carlos v. Superior Court · Lewis & Queen v. N. M. Ball Sons · 64 Cal. 2d 278 - Latipac, Inc. v. Superior Court of Marin County · Norwood v. Judd · Gatti v. Highland Park Builders, Inc.
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 186 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Issuance of a license to [Copier Painting as a partnership] in [its] own name would not have provided defendant with any greater assurances that he was dealing with an experienced and competent contractor,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he extent of enforceability and the kind of remedy granted depend upon a variety of factors, including the policy of the transgressed law, the kind of illegality and the particular facts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Generally a contract made in violation of a regulatory statute is void. Normally, courts will not “ ‘lend their aid to the enforcement of an illegal agreement or one against public policy....”’ This rule is based on the rationale that “the public importance of discouraging such prohibited transactions outweighs equitable considerations of possible injustice between the parties.” However, “the rule is not an inflexible one to be applied in its fullest rigor under any and all circumstances. A wide range of exceptions has been recognized.” For example, the rule will not be applied where the penalties imposed by the Legislature exclude by implication the additional penalty of holding the contract void. Further, illegal contracts will be enforced to avoid unjust enrichment to the defendant at the expense of the plaintiff. Plaintiff asserts that a contract entered into in violation of section 7159 is not for that reason void because the exclusive penalties for noncompliance are those provided in the statute. Violation of [the provision] is a misdemeanor punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. Nothing in the statute declares that an oral contract entered into in contravention of [this provision] shall be void. Whether the statute is to be interpreted as providing exclusive penalties depends upon the intent of the Legislature. (Citations omitted.)”
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.