Weitzenkorn v. Lesser’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 4 district · 114 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 154 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably 14 Cal. 3d 502 - Davies v. Krasna (1975), 46 Cal. 2d 715 - Desny v. Wilder (1956)
18 federal appellate · 4 district · 114 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 Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp. · Philpott v. Superior Court · 20 Cal. 2d 488 - Routh v. Quinn · Varcoe v. Lee · 21 Cal. 2d 822 - Washer v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n
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 154 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The author of any original work of authorship that is not fixed in any tangible medium of expression has an exclusive ownership in the representation or expression thereof as against all persons.... A work shall be considered not fixed when it is not embodied in a tangible medium of expression or when its embodiment in an tangible medium of expression is not sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated far a period of more than transitory duration, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'quasi contracts, unlike true contracts, are not based upon the apparent intention of the parties to undertake the performances in question, nor are they promises. They are obligations created by law for reasons of justice.' . . . Quasi contractual recovery is based upon benefit accepted or derived from which the law implies an obligation to pay.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is unnecessary for the pleading to distinguish between the contract implied in fact and the contract implied in law, or quasi contract, but the elements which must be proved for recovery upon each of them are quite different. The only dictinction between an implied-in-fact contract and an express contract is that, in the former, the promise is not expressed in words but is implied from the promisor’s conduct. (Silva v. Providence Hospital of Oakland, 14 Cal.2d 762, 773 [ 97 P.2d 798 ]; Smith v. Moynihan, 44 Cal. 53, 62 ; Grant v. Long, 33 Cal.App.2d 725, 736-737 [ 92 P.2d 940 ]; Civ. Code, §§ 1619-1621.) Under the theory of a contract implied in fact, the required proof is essentially the same as under the first count upon express contract, with the exception that conduct from which the promise may be implied must be proved. (Cole v. Lord, Inc., supra [ 262 App.Div. 116 ( 28 N.Y.S.2d 404 )].) ” (Emphasis added.)”
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.