Jegen v. Berger’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently December 1990 · most notably 119 Cal. App. 2d 717 - Schmidt v. MacCo Construction Co. (1953), 226 Cal. App. 3d 442 - Brandon & Tibbs v. George Kevorkian Accountancy Corp. (1990)
5 federal appellate · 44 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 Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. · Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co. · 20 Cal. 2d 751 - Universal Sales Corp. v. California Press Manufacturing Co. · 29 Cal. 2d 34 - Speegle v. Board of Fire Underwriters · Natural Soda Products Co. v. City of Los Angeles
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Furthermore, one of the exceptions to the parol evidence rule is that it does not apply when the person seeking to introduce it was not originally a party to the contract, and is not the successor or assign of a party to it. As was said in the ease of Greve v. Echo Oil Co., 8 Cal.App. 275 , at page 279 [ 96 P. 904 ] : ‘ 1 ‘ Where the controversy is between a party to a written contract and one who is neither a party to it or a privy to one who is, the rule excluding parol evidence to explain, vary, modify or contradict the writing does not apply. In such case neither the party nor the stranger to the contract is bound by the rule excluding parol evidence. ’ ’ ’ (See also, Dunn v. Price, 112 Cal. 46 [ 44 P. 354 ] ; Spraul v. Garliepp, 138 Cal.App. 491 [ 32 P.2d 657 ]; Mayfield v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 16 Cal.App.2d 611 [ 61 P.2d 83 ].)””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[citation]. [15] Where any doubt exists as to the purport of the parties' dealings as expressed in the wording of their contract, the court may look to the circumstances surrounding its execution--including the object, nature and subject matter of the agreement [citation]--as well as to subsequent acts or declarations of the parties”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.