Dunphy v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis
116 U.S. 491 · 1886
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 2 district · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2001 · most notably Shappirio v. Goldberg (1904), Feeney v. Howard (1889)
20 federal appellate · 2 district · 37 state decisions — followed in 17 states
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 Ogden v. Saunders · Swain v. Seamens · Hornbuckle v. Toombs · Purcell v. Miner · Dung v. . Parker
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is a contract for the sale of lands, and, not being in writing, signed by the vendor, is void. * * * A contract void by the statute cannot be enforced directly or collaterally. It confers no right and creates no obligation as between the parties to it. * * * “It is well settled that when one person pays money or performs services for another upon a contract void under the statute of frauds, he may recover the money upon a count for money paid to the use of defendant at his request, or recover for the services upon the quantum meruit count. * * * “But the defendant’s counsel further insist that there has been such a part performance of the contract as entitles the defendant to equitable relief, on the ground that it would be a fraud on him not to enforce the contract. * * * “As between these parties there has been no payment, no possession, and no improvements. The only complaint of misconduct on the part of the plaintiff which can be inferred from the pleadings is his refusal to perform a verbal contract for the purchase of lands. But the mere breach of a verbal promise for the purchase of lands will not justify the interference of a court of equity. Purcell v. Miner, 4 Wall. 513 [ 18 L. Ed. 435 ]. There is no fraud in such a refusal. The party who so refuses, stands upon the law, and has a right to refuse. Under the circumstances of this case the statute is as binding on a court of equity as on a court of law. If the mere refusal of a party to perform a parol contract fo”
4 later decisions 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.