Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 74 CAL 435 - O'Connor v. Irvine

O'Connor v. Irvine’s Empirical Analysis

1887

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
4
states following
June 1962
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently June 1962 · most notably 16 Cal. 2d 516 - Bank of California v. Superior Court (1940), Viner v. Untrecht (1945)

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 44 state decisions

160188718901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 Matter of Will of O'Hara · Page v. Page · Millard v. Hathaway · Sandfoss v. Jones · Siemon v. . Schurck

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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “It was not necessary for the plaintiff to show the defendant agreed in formal or express language that he would make the purchase for Fair and others, and hold it for their benefit. It is sufficient if it was mutually understood between the parties that he was so acting in their behalf. What was said and done by the parties, so far as the evidence shows, is capable of only one interpretation, and establishes a perfect understanding between the parties, as above stated. Under such circumstances, although the language used may not of itself show an express promise, it is the duty of the party whose services are sought, if he does not mean to act in accordance with the evident expectation of the parties with whom he is dealing, to expressly declare that he will not; otherwise his silent acquiescence is a fraud.”
    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.