Brinderson-Newberg Joint Venture v. Pacific Erectors, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
971 F.2d 272 · 1992
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Sws Erectors Inc v. Infax Inc (1996), Guebara v. Allstate Insurance (2001)
35 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 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 Vandygriff v. Phillips · Hannahville Indian Community v. United States · United States v. McConney · 69 Cal. 2d 33 - Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co. · Erickson v. United States
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a contract should be interpreted so as to give meaning to each of its provisions”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whether the written contract is reasonably susceptible of a proffered meaning is a matter of law that is reviewed de novo.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Arcon/pacific Ltd., a Limited Partnership, by and Through Arcon, Inc., a Corporation, General Partner Arcon, Inc., a Corporation Individually, Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellants v. Estate of Robert S. Coit Estate of Benjamin Coit Michael Coit Harold Pink, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees. Arcon/pacific Ltd., a Limited Partnership, by and Through Arcon, Inc., a Corporation, General Partner Arcon, Inc., a Corporation Individually, Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellees v. Estate of Robert S. Coit Estate of Benjamin Coit Michael Coit Harold Pink, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellants · Renwick v. Bennett““ ‘Our conception of the rale which permits parol evidence of fraud to establish the invalidity of the instrument is that it must tend to establish some independent fact or representation, some fraud in the procurement of the instrument or some breach of confidence concerning its use, and not a promise directly at variance with the promise of the writing.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.