Gordon v. Pollock’s Empirical Analysis
1926
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 1962
4 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 Aylesbury Mercantile Co. v. Fitch · Chickasaw Compress Co. v. Bow · Payne v. McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. · Farris v. Stoutz · Beams v. Young
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘A claim dependent upon a future contingency — on the 'happening of an event ■which may never happen — does not accrue until the event happens; until then it is not a claim.’ Parris v. Stoutz, 78 Ala. 130 . ‘A promise to pay which is conditioned on the performance of an act, Or depends on the happening of a contingency, cannot be enforced, unless the. condition 'has been performed or the contingency has happened.’ Bollings v. Denver Club, 43 Colo. 345 , 96 Pac. 188 , 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 733.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Garner v. Grogan
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.