53 Cal. 2d 567 - Brewer v. Simpson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 349 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 356 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[4] It is well settled that a person may contract to make a particular disposition of his property by will, and in case of a breach the promisee has several available remedies. He may bring an action at law for damages. ... Equitable relief in the form of 'quasi specific performance' of the contract may be obtained where the remedy at law is inadequate and the promisor has failed to make the promised disposition of his will. ... It has also been recognized that the promisees of such a contract need not wait until the death of the promisor but may seek equitable relief against inter vivos conveyances made by him in fraud of their rights. ... [5] The right to enforce such a contract to make a particular disposition of property on death is not restricted to the promisee. Where two parties agree to make mutual wills, each promising to dispose of his property to the other or, if the other be dead, to certain third persons, and one of the parties performs by leaving his property to the other, the intended devisees and legatees are entitled to enforce their rights as beneficiaries under the agreement.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 274 Cal. App. 2d 70 - Estate of Cooper · 16 Cal. App. 3d 1 - Estate of Cates

2. ““ ‘When a finding of fact is attacked on the ground that there is not any substantial evidence to sustain it, the power of an appellate court begins and ends with the determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the finding of fact,’ and ‘ When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, a reviewing court is without power to substitute its deductions for those of the trial court.’ [Citation.] ‘Appellate courts ... if there be any reasonable doubt as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a finding, should resolve that doubt in favor of the finding; and in searching the record and exploring the inferences which may arise from what is found there, to discover whether such doubt or conflict exists, the court should be realistic and practical.’ [Citation.] ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Steele · 217 Cal. App. 2d 812 - Garter v. Metzdorf Associates

3. “'[H]owever lame, however inconclusive, any number of the findings may be, if in any case there be one clear, sustained and sufficient finding upon which the judgment may rest, every presumption being in favor of the judgment, it will be here concluded that the court did rest its judgment upon that finding, or those findings, and the others may and will be disregarded.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Knapp v. City of Newport Beach · Thornton v. Stevenson