50 Cal. App. 2d 520 - Kelley v. Russell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 state decisions

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

1. ““Appellant’s next point is that these option contracts cannot be specifically enforced because they were uncertain and lacked mutuality. This is based on one of the findings of the court to the effect that there is no ten-acre parcel containing a water well, spring or other water supply which is defined or can be identified by the terms of the leases, and that the appellant has failed and refused properly to designate or specify any such ten-acre parcel which he claims the right to except from the conveyance. From this it is argued that the option provisions are so uncertain that they cannot be specifically enforced. Any uncertainty which exists arises neither from the terms of the options nor from the court’s finding but from the refusal of the appellant to designate any such parcels upon which a water supply existed without including land upon which the oil wells were located. The mere fact that the appellant had the right under the options to claim and exclude from the forty-acre tracts, which the respondents were obliged to offer to purchase, any ten-acre parcels upon which a water supply had existed at the time in question, does not make these option contracts so uncertain as to be unenforceable. (Lange v. Waters, 156 Cal. 142 [ 103 P. 889 , 19 Ann.Cas. 1207] ; Stamm v. Colvin, 94 Cal.App. 180 [ 270 P. 744 ]; Janssen v. Davis, 219 Cal. 783 [ 29 P.2d 196 ].) If the appellant desired to exercise the right given him to exclude any ten-acre tracts from the conveyances he was”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Salmons v. Jameson