Black v. Herbert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

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

1. ““The Gillette case is clearly distinguishable from this, in that a material part of the inscription had in that case been omitted. It could not be changed except by making an entirely new monument. The first one had been delivered and tendered as complete. Mr. Gillette promptly notified the plaintiff that he refused to accept the monument, and that he rescinded and revoked its order, and declined to accept any other proposition. The company removed the monument, cast and put in place a second, which also was defective. They removed this, and put up a third,- for which they brought suit. Had the first monument been of granite, and that part of the inscription omitted could have been chiseled in so as to comply with the contract, the case would have been like this. . .' . It is not good law nor good sense that a party, under such circumstances, could not remedy a defect, and thus complete his contract.” (Black v. Herbert, 111 Mich. 638, 640, 641 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wright v. Larson Bros. Wholesale Grocery Co.