Edgar v. Hitch’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently November 1996 · most notably 54 Cal. 2d 328 - Acadia, California, Ltd. v. Herbert (1960), 225 Cal. App. 2d 451 - Culbertson v. Cizek (1964)
6 federal appellate · 36 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 37 Cal. 2d 592 - Potter v. Pacific Coast Lumber Co. · Fairchild v. Raines · James v. Haley · San Jose Abstract & Title Insurance v. Elliott · Wilcox v. West
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Even if the record be viewed as showing substantial evidence of bad faith (citation), before the judgment may be affirmed it must appear that the trial court held for the plaintiff because the defendant failed to prove that the accord and satisfaction was the result of a bona fide dispute. “Section 632 of the Code of Civil Procedure required the trial court to make findings on the material issues in the case, and the findings must be examined to determine whether the judgment was based on the defendant’s bad faith. The defendant is entitled, to a finding on the validity of Ms defense of accord and satisfaction. (Citations.) In the absence of such a finding, sufficient support for the judgment for plaintiff cannot be ascertained. Therefore, under the circumstances here presented a failure to make a finding on the defense . . . would constitute prejudicial error. (Citations.) “The court did not expressly find that the defendant’s claim was made in bad faith; for that matter, it did not even make an express finding rejecting the defendant’s plea of accord and satisfaction for any reason. . . . Therefore, the judgment must be reversed unless from the express finding it is possible to imply a finding that the defense of a subsequent accord and satisfaction was unmeritorious because no bona fide dispute was proved. (Citations.) “Such a finding cannot reasonably be implied. The record indicates that the trial court did not even pass on the defense. . . .” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[W]here a claim is disputed or unliquidated and the tender of a check or draft in settlement thereof is of such character as to give the creditor notice that it must be accepted 'in full discharge of his claim' or not at all, the retention and use of such check or draft constitutes an accord and satisfaction . . .; and it is immaterial that the 'creditor protests against accepting the tender in full payment' . . ., for in such case 'the law permits but two alternatives, either reject or accept in accordance with the condition.' [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.