Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 102 FSUPP 732 - Sinclair Refining Co. v. Clay

Sinclair Refining Co. v. Clay’s Empirical Analysis

1951

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
9
states following
September 1986
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently September 1986

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 state decisions

501951196019701980decided

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 Sinclair Refining Co. v. Allbritton · Butler v. Richardson · Shell Oil Co. v. Blumberg

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

  1. “But the question here is what effect this provision for a first refusal has, if any, upon the provision for an option. As we indicated above it has no effect whatever. The right of option remains unimpaired. Until the time prescribed for its exercise expires, the respondents cannot sell for any amount without complainants' consent. However, the provision for a first refusal may nevertheless serve a useful purpose. It provides a means whereby respondents, if they desired, could induce an acceleration of complainants' decision to purchase by affording them an opportunity to purchase at a price more advantageous to them than the price fixed in the option. Of course the provision could not serve this purpose if the offer was at a higher price, and consequently it is inconceivable that the parties in agreeing to the provision could have contemplated any offer except one that was lower than $15,000. We are of the opinion, therefore, that the provision for a first refusal should be construed in that light, not so much as an alternative to the provision for an option but rather as a supplement thereto.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The general rule as to the interpretation of such contracts is stated in volume 3, Thompson on Real Property, § 1329, p. 492: `When the lessee is given the first privilege of purchasing the premises, he must, after notice from the lessor of the receipt of a bona fide offer, elect to exercise his privilege in accordance with the terms of the lease or the right is lost.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““Since at no time has lessor ever offered to carry out her duties under the lease, she cannot now say that the plaintiff should be denied relief because it did not tender the purchase price.””
    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.