92 Cal. App. 701 - Hawber v. Raley’s Empirical Analysis
1928
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently February 1989 · most notably Ash v. Mortensen (1944), 48 Cal. 2d 617 - Lamoreux v. San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway Co. (1957)
38 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 Lovejoy v. Murray · City of Chicago v. Babcock · Tompkins v. Clay St. R.R. · Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Hilligoss · Abb v. Northern Pacific Railway 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It would therefore appear to be a rule of construction that where two or more tort-feasors are involved and the document is such that the covenantee may plead the same in abatement of any action which the covenantor might subsequently commence in breach of the obligation contained in said document and the remedy thereunder is not restricted to an action on the covenant, the document constitutes a release and satisfaction, and not a mere covenant not to sue. An inspection of the document in question here discloses that by its very terms it was agreed ‘that should the said Mrs. E. W. Hawber at any time in the future institute claim, demand, or suit at law against the said Mrs. Harriet E. Emery the said Mrs. Harriet E. Emery may plead this agreement in full satisfaction and release of said claim, demand, or suit at law,’ and it would follow, therefore, under the rule of the authorities above cited, that said document constitutes a full release and satisfaction for the injuries received by plaintiff, and that the same is not merely a covenant not to sue.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Presumably the jury followed the instructions and included these elements of damage in its verdict. It would seem clear, therefore, that if the judgment herein is allowed to stand, plaintiff will be twice compensated for the same elements of damage. True, she may have received from Mrs. Emery only a part of the damages accruing from her injuries, but, as said in Tompkins v. Clay Street R. R. Co. [ 66 Cal. 163 , 4 Pac. 1165 ], supra: ‘Damages resulting from the same wrongful transaction are ordinarily inseparable; she could not recover part from one and part from the other defendant’; and again in Flynn v. Manson [ 19 Cal. App. 400 , 126 Pac. 181 ], supra, as follows: ‘However conflicting may be the current of authorities in respect to the proper construction of a release of the kind in question, it is a well-settled principle of law that in actions ex delicto plaintiff can recover compensation but once. Where the demand is unliquidated, as in the case here, the court cannot hold that the payment of any sum, however small, in consideration of a release does not or can not operate as compensation for the alleged injuries.’ ” Hawber v. Raley, 92 Cal. App. 701 , 268 Pac. 943 .”
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.