Sullivan v. Marsh’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently December 2013
1 federal appellate · 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 Higby v. Hooper · Hart v. Barron · State Ex Rel. Nagle v. Naughton · McNamer Realty Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Gas Co. · Comerford v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"` The presumption is that the writing contains the final agreement of the parties and expresses their real purpose and intent. To meet and overcome that presumption plaintiff was required to present clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. ...'" 134 Mont. 167 , 328 P.2d 661 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““One may not employ a suit for reformation of a contract for the purpose of making an entirely new agreement. Such suits are only to establish and perpetuate an already existing contract, and to make it express the real intent of the parties as such intent existed at the time of the making of the agreement. A court of equity is not empowered to supply by decree an agreement which was never made ... It is the duty of the court to enforce contracts which the parties themselves have made and not to make new and different contracts for the parties or to make significant additions thereto and thus give to one or more of the parties, benefits and advantages on which the minds of the contracting parties have never met.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rogers v. Relyea“". . . a matter of privilege rather than of right. The privilege is personal to the licensee. The license is neither a right of property, nor a contract or contract right, in the legal or constitutional sense of those terms. Such liquor license does not run with the business conducted under the privilege it grants and is not an asset of it." Sullivan, 124 Mont. at 426 , 225 P.2d at 874 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Feurherm v. Schmaing
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.