Redwine v. Hudman’s Empirical Analysis
1911
Citation profile
54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently October 2001 · most notably Paramount Fire Insurance v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (1962), 40 Cal. App. 246 - California Land Security Co. v. Ritchie (1919)
54 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.
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The question always is, what is the contract? Is it that one certain act shall be done, with a sum annexed, whether by way of penalty or damages, to secure tbe' performance of this very act? Or is it that one of two things shall be done at the election of the party who has to perform the contract, namely, the performance of the act or the payment of the sum of money? If the former, the fact of the penal or other like sum being annexed will not prevent the court enforcing the performance of the very act, and thus carrying into execution the intention of the parties. If the latter, the contract is satisfied by the payment of a sum of money, and there is no ground for proceeding against the party having the'election, to compel the performance of the other alternative.” Fry, Spec. Per. § 115.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Carter v. Smith““It is further agreed and understood by and between the parties herein mentioned that, if the said party of the first part herein shall fail or refuse from any cause to execute and deliver said deed to said'party of the second part, then and in that event the party of the first part shall deliver to the party of the second part said property herein conveyed to him, and in the event of his failure or inability to deliver said property then the party of the first part shall pay to the party of the second part the reasonable market value of said property.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Of course mere improvidence in a contract does not control its plain provisions, but an unreasonableness in a suggested construction may justly prevent its adoption when a more reasonable one is as consistent with the language used.””
1 later decision 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.