Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 77 Utah 137 - Forrester v. Cook

Forrester v. Cook’s Empirical Analysis

1930

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
4
states following
July 2019
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably 3 Utah 2d 59 - Jacobson v. Swan (1954), Olds Bros. Lumber Co. v. Rushing (1946)

28 state decisions

50193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Arnold v. Krigbaum · 19 Cal. App. 518 - Knight v. Black · McDonald v. Rankin · 17 Cal. App. 254 - San Francisco & Suburban Home Building Society v. Leonard · 53 Cal. App. 737 - Pfitzer v. Candeias

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

  1. ““The contract between the parties hereto provides for an attorney’s fee in ‘enforcing this agreement.’ This is not an action to enforce the agreement. Plaintiff has proceeded upon the theory that the agreement fixed the status of the parties after forfeiture and that thereupon defendants became tenants at will. Upon the giving of the notice required by the statute this tenancy ceased, and thereafter defendants held possession of the premises unlawfully. The action is summary and limited and is one for recovery of possession of property and damages because of the unlawful detention. No attempt is made to enforce any of the provisions of the contract. The action is not one on contract. The law and not the contract fixes the measure of damages. No provision is made in the law for an attorney’s fee in this sort of action.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “`It appears to be thoroughly established, both in this state and in other jurisdictions having substantially similar statutes to our unlawful detainer statutes, that neither a counterclaim nor cross-complaint of any kind is permissible in an action in unlawful detainer. This question was discussed by the District Court of Appeal of the First District, in the recent case of Knight v. Black, 19 Cal. App. 518 , 126 P. 512 , where many authorities are cited. There is no distinction in the authorities between cases where the subject-matter of the attempted counterclaim or cross-complaint arises out of a violation of the terms of the lease upon which the action is brought, and other cases.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Rents which may not be trebled, are such as accrue before termination of the tenancy. After the tenancy has been terminated by the notice required by the statute, the person in unlawful possession is not owing rent under the contract, but must respond in damages pursuant to the law. Rental value or reasonable value of the use and occupation of the premises becomes an element of damages for retaining possession. This is not rent, it is damages.”
    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.