Love v. White’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably 133 Cal. App. 3d 988 - In Re Marriage of Miller (1982), 254 Cal. App. 2d 725 - Kish v. Bay Counties Title Guaranty Co. (1967)
7 federal appellate · 15 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 Hildebrand v. Beck · 145 Cal. App. 2d 374 - Todd v. Vestermark · Helperin v. Guzzardi
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““On December 2, 1958, plaintiff, as the seller, and defendant, as the buyer, entered into a written contract for the sale and purchase of a business known as Carol’s Cafe, including the stock in trade, fixtures, equipment, good will, and a lease held by plaintiff which would entitle defendant to possession of the premises for approximately five years, for a total price of $7,000. “The contract, in the form of an escrow agreement, provided among other things, that defendant would deliver to the escrow holder $3,000 cash, execute a conditional sales contract for $4,000 in favor of plaintiff, payable $100 per month, buy the inventory outside of escrow when he took possession of the premises, and make immediate application for all licenses necessary for the operation of the business; that plaintiff would accept the conditional sales contract as part of the purchase price, deliver a lease of the premises of approximately three years’ duration, with a two-year option to' renew, payable at a rental of $100 per month, and deliver to the escrow holder various instruments, including a bill of sale covering the stock in trade, fixtures, equipment and good will of the business; and that (1) possession was to be granted to defendant outside of escrow when agreed upon between plaintiff and defendant, (2) plaintiff warranted the premises would pass all inspections necessary for the operation of the business, and (3) if plaintiff, for any reason, refused or was unable to deliver the property”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In this state the terms and conditions of an escrow must be performed. The doctrine of substantial performance does not apply, and no title passes prior to full performance of the terms of the escrow agreement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Davis v. Holsten
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.