39 Cal. 4th 384 - Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 74 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 161 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably 162 Cal. App. 4th 1107 - Wolf v. Walt Disney Pictures and Television (2008), Commercial Money Center, Inc. v. Illinois Union Insurance (2007)
16 federal appellate · 74 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 69 Cal. 2d 33 - Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co. · 24 Cal. 4th 317 - Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. · 12 Cal. 4th 631 - Lazar v. Superior Court · 36 Cal. 4th 1028 - Yanowitz v. L'OREAL USA, INC. · 2 Cal. 3d 192 - Herzog v. National American Insurance
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 161 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, the court provisionally receives (without actually admitting) all credible evidence concerning the parties’ intentions to determine “ambiguity,” i.e., whether the language is “reasonably susceptible” to the interpretation urged by a party. If in light of the extrinsic evidence the court decides the language is “reasonably susceptible” to the interpretation urged, the extrinsic evidence is then admitted to aid in the second step—interpreting the contract.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““[the] meaning of language is to be found in its applications. An indeterminacy in the application of language signals its vagueness or ambiguity. An ambiguity arises when language is reasonably susceptible of more than one application to material facts. There cannot be an ambiguity per se, i.e., an ambiguity unrelated to an application.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“'[t]he test of admissibility of extrinsic evidence to explain the meaning of a written instrument is not whether it appears to the court to be plain and unambiguous on its face, but whether the offered evidence is relevant to prove a meaning to which the language of the instrument is reasonably susceptible.' [Citation.]”
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.