72 Cal. App. 2d 39 - Aiello v. Sliskovich’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently March 1966
8 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 64 Cal. App. 132 - Gopcevic v. California Packing Corp. · 75 Cal. App. 231 - Wanee v. Thomas · 44 Cal. App. 2d 826 - Tillis v. Western Fruit Growers, Inc. · 96 Cal. App. 650 - Sun-Maid Raisin Growers v. Jones · Matmor Olive Co. v. Du Bois
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is not at all likely that, had the contract been intended or understood to be merely executory and its consummation dependent upon delivery of the hay by the sellers to the purchaser, the defendant would have bound itself to pay three-quarters of the purchase price within so short a time after the transaction and before (as we shall later see was true) the place of delivery was designated by the defendant. Referring to the circumstance of the payment down of a large amount of the purchase price of personal property as one shedding some light on the nature of the contract involving a transfer of such property—that is, upon the question whether the contract involves an absolute sale or is only executory—Williston, in his work on ‘Sales,’ 1909 edition, page 368, says: ‘If the buyer pays the price, or a large portion of it, it is evidence not so strong as delivery, but still entitled to great weight, that immediate transfer of the property is intended. . . .’ ” (See, Aiello v. Sliskovich, 72 Cal.App.2d 39 [ 163 P.2d 768 ].)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) “Where there is a contract to sell specific or ascertained goods, the property in them is transferred to the buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred; ’ ’ (2) “For the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the parties, regard shall be had to the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties, usages of the trade and the circumstances of the case;” and (3) “Unless a different intention appears, . . . where there is an unconditional contract to sell specific goods, in a deliverable state, the property in the goods passes to the buyer when the contract is made, and it is immaterial whether the time of payment, or the time of delivery, or both, be postponed.” (Civ. Code, §§ 1738 and 1739.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Post v. Jacobsen
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.