121 Ind. App. 708 - Hill v. Rogers’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently October 1973
20 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 91 Ind. App. 574 - Abernathy v. McCoy · 89 Ind. App. 431 - Clayton v. Fletcher Savings & Trust Co. · 120 Ind. App. 700 - Spanier v. Spanier · Fritz v. Clark · 90 Ind. App. 664 - Baker v. Eades
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.
““. . . As before stated, if the provision requiring notice of the intention to rescind had been omitted from the contract [as in the present contract], no notice would have been required, and when an installment became delinquent for a period of sixty days [five days in the present contract] the right to forfeit the contract under the law would have been absolute, if the parties had not by some act waived their right to declare a forfeitzire. If, for instance, it had been their custom and habit to accept payments of purchase price at irregular times and in irregular amounts, more than ten days after a 60-day default in paying the installments, the right to declare a forfeiture of the contract without doubt would have been waived, and could not ordinarily have been exercised without a persono,l notice giving the purchaser a reasonable time within which to make payment of the delinquent installment or installments. “Forfeiture is a harsh remedy, not favored in equity, and must yield to the principle of compensation where fair dealing and good conscience seem to demand. Where a party by his indulgence has waived the provision of a contract making the time of payment of money of the essence of the contract, and temporarily sus pends the right to declare a forfeiture, such right can be resumed only by giving a definite and specific notice to that effect ”, citing authority. (The emphasis and bracketed words are ours.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““may consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom, most favorable to the plaintiff.. If there is any evidence from which it may be reasonably inferred the plaintiff was entitled to relief, it is error to sustain such motion.””
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.