Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 109 F.2d 840 - Moore v. Snider

Moore v. Snider’s Empirical Analysis

109 F.2d 840 · 1940

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
January 1975
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently January 1975

14 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

1001940195019601970decided

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 Montgomery Bell v. James Morrison Anthony Butler and Jonathan Taylor · Shepherd v. Thompson · 31 App. D.C. 64 - Hornblower v. George Washington University · Catholic University of America v. Waggaman · Hayden v. International Banking Corp.

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

  1. “In an action upon a simple contract, an acknowledgement or promise by words only is not sufficient evidence of a new or continuing contract whereby to take the case out of the operation of the statute of limitations or to deprive a party of the benefit thereof unless the acknowledgement or promise is in writing, signed by the party chargeable thereby. This section does not alter or take away, or lessen the effect of a payment of principal or interest made by any person. In actions against two or more joint contractors, or executors, or administrators, if it appears at the trial, or otherwise, that the plaintiff, though barred by the statute of limitations as to one or more of the defendants, is nevertheless entitled to recover against any other defendant by virtue of a new acknowledgement or promise or otherwise, judgment may be given for the plaintiff as to that defendant. An indorsement or memorandum of a payment written or made upon a promissory note, bill of exchange, or other writing, by or on behalf of the party to whom the payment is to be made, is sufficient proof of the payment so as to take the case out of the operation of the statute of limitations.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “if it shall appear that the accompanying circumstances under which the acknowledgment was made are such as to repel or leave in doubt the inference that appellant intended to indicate a willingness to pay, the plaintiff (appellee) ought not to have judgment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the acknowledgment is really only evidence of a promise to pay. The promise implied is what counts. * * * It follows, we think, that the acknowledgment must not be accompanied by circumstances which negative any intention or promise to pay.”
    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.