Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 90 Cal. App. 13 - Waybright v. Meek

90 Cal. App. 13 - Waybright v. Meek’s Empirical Analysis

1928

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
3
states following
May 1992
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 1992

10 state decisions

3019281930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Wallace v. Zinman · Pacific Wharf & Storage Co. v. Standard American Dredging Co.

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

  1. ““Whether a contract is entire or separable depends upon its language and subject matter, and this question is one of construction to be determined by the court according to the intention of the parties. Where several things are to be done under a contract, if the money consideration is apportioned to each of the items to be performed, the covenants are ordinarily regarded as severable and independent. (Pacific Wharf etc. Co. v. Standard American Dredging Co., 184 Cal. 21 [ 192 Pac. 847 ].) Here the consideration is apportioned to each of the items of services. Neither item is a part of the other nor are they in any manner dependent upon each other. The first one was fully performed by respondent and his assignor and they are entitled to the compensation which the agreement provided for.” (See, also, Sterling v. Gregory, 149 Cal. 117 [ 85 Pac. 305 ].)”
    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.