Esau v. Briggs’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently August 2007
20 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 Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co. · 25 Cal. 2d 447 - Neet v. Holmes · 76 Cal. App. 2d 50 - Anderson v. Thacher · French v. Freeman · 20 Cal. 2d 286 - Rogers v. Warden
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Just how long plaintiff delayed in commencing the action after becoming aware of his right to rescind is not clear, but it was not longer than five months. The doctrine of laches does not rest entirely upon lapse of time, and it does not require any specified period of delay. (Neet v. Holmes, supra, ( 25 Cal.2d 447, 460 [ 154 P.2d 854 ].) Whether a defrauded party has rescinded ‘promptly’ depends upon all the circumstances of the particular case. (Noll v. Baida, 202 Cal. 98, 109 [ 259 P. 433 ].) It does not appear, in the present case, that the defendant suffered any injury on account of plaintiff’s delay.” (See also Warfield v. Richey, 167 Cal.App.2d 93, 98 [ 334 P.2d 101 ].)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lyke v. Pursley
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.