Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 79 Cal. App. 2d 266 - Erickson v. Boothe

79 Cal. App. 2d 266 - Erickson v. Boothe’s Empirical Analysis

1947

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
2
states following
August 1989
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently August 1989 · most notably Bank of California v. Connolly (1973), 31 Cal. 2d 766 - Warner Bros. Pictures v. Brodel (1948)

1 federal appellate · 39 state decisions

16019471950196019701980decided

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 Newport v. Hatton · 26 Cal. 2d 92 - Bewick v. Mecham · Erwin v. Lowry · O'Hara v. MacConnell · Estate of Dutard v. Bank of California

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

  1. ““* * * In the absence of an express provision that a new lease is intended to be executed, the presumption is that no new lease is intended, but that lessee is to continue to hold under the original lease. The lease must clearly and positively show that the making of a new lease was intended. This must appear from the express language of the parties. The reason for the presumption is the fact that the making of a new lease will involve trouble and expense which should be avoided by the courts, if possible, unless it is very clear that the parties had expressly agreed to incur such trouble and expense. For if the new lease, as is always the case, when executed, is but a substitute for and a reexecution of the old lease, it is in no wise more efficacious or obligatory, nor does it confer any greater rights than the latter. * * *””
    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.