Keller v. Reynolds’s Empirical Analysis
1895
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 1969 · most notably Straus v. Yeager (1911), Young v. Wiley (1914)
25 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.
Relationships
Relies on Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati & Indianapolis Railroad v. Newell · Woolery v. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. · Harman v. Moore · Shugart v. Miles · Conner v. Town of Marion
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Whether or not the performance of those things to be done by appellee is to be regarded as a condition precedent is to be determined from an examination of the entire contract, giving to it a reasonable and fair interpretation. Those matters as to which appellee has failed to aver performance constitute but a part of the consideration for the agreement of appellants to pay to her the amounts named, and since the agreement has been in an essential feature performed by appellee and the benefit of such performance received by appellants and any loss to appellants from her failure to completely perform may be compensated by damages, such stipulations will be regarded as independent and not as constituting conditions precedent. Pickens v. Bozell, 11 Ind. 275 ; Harman v. Moore, 112 Ind. 221 ; Cummings v. Pence, 1 Ind. App. 317 ; Boone v. Eyre, 1 H. Bl. 273, 2 Pars. Conts. (5th ed.), 525-529. “There are, of course, many contracts in which the requirements must be regarded as conditions precedent or as covenants interdependent, performance of which must be alleged, but when fairly construed this contract is not of that character.””
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.