Lande v. Jurisich’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably 37 Cal. 2d 79 - Stein v. Simpson (1951), 45 Cal. App. 3d 605 - Wal-Noon Corp. v. Hill (1975)
22 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 Calhoun v. Massie · Calvin Nutt v. S Prentiss Knut K · Nutt v. Knut · Boyce v. Fisk · 54 Cal. App. 186 - Estate of Beffa
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Labor Code § 300 provides as follows: No assignment of, or order for wages or salary, earned or to be earned, shall be valid unless: (a) Separate written instrument. Such assignment is contained in a separate written instrument, signed by the person by whom the said wages or salary have been earned or are to be earned, and identifying specifically the transaction to which the assignment relates; and (b) Signature of spouse. Where such assignment of, or order for wages or salary is made by a married person, the written consent of the husband or wife of the person making such assignment or order is attached to such assignment or order; ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“While it is doubtless true that, in strict legal parlance, the mere imposing of a lien on wages to be earned in the future is not an assignment of them [citations omitted], we see little difference in the incidence of the two on the future condition of the worker and his family.... At 617.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“While the agreement is not technically an assignment, it does, if valid, pass to defendant an interest in plaintiff’s future wages which defendant did not have before and in a sense may be regarded as having transferred or “assigned” that interest to him. At 619, 139 P.2d 657 .”
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.