Schmidt v. Waterford Winery, Ltd.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding wine pooling contract giving winery sole discretion as to when to sell wine implied duty of good faith

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Chesapeake Industries, Inc. v. Togova Entreprises, Inc.
  California Court of Appeal· 1983-12-14· cited 64×
• Leaf v. Phil Rauch, Inc.
  California Court of Appeal· 1975-04-22· cited 46×
• Sepe v. City of Safety Harbor
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2000-06-28· cited 35×
• Watson Bowman Acme Corp. v. RGW Construction, Inc.
  California Court of Appeal· 2016-08-09· cited 32×
• Mashon v. Haddock
  California Court of Appeal· 1961-03-16· cited 27×
• Pilch v. Milikin
  California Court of Appeal· 1962-02-13· cited 16×
• Munier v. Hawkins
  California Court of Appeal· 1961-03-29· cited 7×
• Roodenburg v. Pavestone Co., LP
  California Court of Appeal· 2009-02-18· cited 7×

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Union Sugar Co. v. Hollister Estate Co.
  California Supreme Court· 1935-06-25· cited 137×
• Cox v. McLaughlin
  California Supreme Court· 1881-05-01· cited 137×
• Lineman v. Schmid
  California Supreme Court· 1948-07-09· cited 93×
• Stockton Theatres, Inc. v. Palermo
  California Court of Appeal· 1953-11-30· cited 43×