Downing v. Stiles’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably State Ex Rel. Scholl v. Anselmi (1982), UNC Teton Exploration Drilling, Inc. v. Peyton (1989)
25 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 25 Cal. 2d 48 - Lloyd v. Murphy · Amoco Production Co. v. Stauffer Chemical Co. · Greenough v. Prairie Dog Ranch, Inc. · Howard v. Nicholson · State Surety Co. v. Lamb Construction Co.
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.
“"* * * The doctrine of commercial frustration is close to but distinct from the doctrine of impossibility of performance. Both concern the effect of supervening circumstances upon the rights and duties of the parties but in cases of commercial frustration '[plerformance remains possible but the expected value of performance to the party seeking to be excused has been destroyed by a fortuitous event, which supervenes to cause an actual but not literal failure of consideration" Lloyd v Murphy, 25 Cal.2d 48 , 153 P.2d 47, 50 (Cal. en banc 1944)."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“1. The contract is at least partially execu-tory. 2. A supervening event occurred after the contract was made. 3. The non-occurrence of such event was a basic assumption on which the contract was made. 4. Buch occurrence frustrated the party's principal purpose for the contract. 5. The frustration was substantial, and 6. The party has not agreed, expressly or impliedly, to perform in spite of the occurrence of the event.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“§ 261. Discharge by Supervening Impracticability Where, after a contract is made, a party’s performance is made impracticable without his fault by the occurrence of an event the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was made, his duty to render that performance is discharged, unless the language or the circumstances indicate the contrary.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mortenson v. Scheer
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.