Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 85 Cal. App. 757 - Miller v. Reidy

85 Cal. App. 757 - Miller v. Reidy’s Empirical Analysis

1927

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
4
states following
August 1982
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently August 1982 · most notably Kern Sunset Oil Co. v. Good Roads Oil Co. (1931), Bedford Investment Co. v. Folb (1947)

2 federal appellate · 21 state decisions

601927193019401950196019701980decided

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 German-American Sav. Bank v. Gollmer · Randol v. Tatum · Alden v. Mayfield · 33 Cal. App. 581 - Myers v. Herskowitz · 11 Cal. App. 321 - Spangler v. Spangler

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

  1. ““If the assignment were to be regarded as a breach of the lease, the evidence is sufficient to support the finding that the right to take advantage of such breach was waived by the lessors. It is true that in accepting each month’s rent from Reidy, Dr. Miller executed a receipt in the following language: ‘Received from P. M. Reidy three hundred dollars for rent of premises at . . . for the month of . . . without prejudice to any of my rights under the lease of said premises. ’ This was a clear attempt to eat the cake and still keep it. His actions belie his words. Waiver is a question of intention. (Alden v. Mayfield, 164 Cal. 6 [ 127 Pac. 45 ] ; Jones v. Maria, supra; Myers v. Herskowitz, 33 Cal. App. 581 [ 165 Pac. 1031 ].) For the lessors month after month to accept rents specified in the lease, and at the same time declare that there was a forfeiture, results in an irreconcilable inconsistency. ... If an unauthorized assignment had been made the lessors had the right to declare the term at an end, or they could have waived the breach and let the lease continue. Nowhere within that agreement nor in the law is there a stipulation or provision that they might do both.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Dr. Miller knew that Reidy assigned or sublet . . . This was two years before suit was filed, and he accepted rent from Reidy even after that time. The very words of the receipt given by Dr. Miller compel the conclusion that when each one was signed he regarded the lease as still in force.” (emphasis supplied).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““without prejudice to any of my rights under the lease of said premises.””
    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.