Fraser v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 46 state decisions

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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““25-2-102. Tort Actions. Actions for tort may be tried in the county where the tort was committed, subject, however, to the power of the court to change the place of trial as provided in this code.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brown v. Hartwell · Bick v. Haidle

2. ““Our statute (Revised Codes, sec. 6504 [now section 93-2904, R.C.M.1947]) expressly provides that, if none of the defendants reside in this state, an action may be tried in any county which the plaintiff may designate in his complaint. As to what are styled local actions — such, for example as those relating to interests in lands — usually the venue or place of trial is the district or the county where the subject matter lies. But in general, transitory actions may be tried wherever personal service can be made on the defendant. As to the general jurisdiction of the courts of a state, this is coextensive with its sovereignty, which is limited only by the territory of the state and attaches to all the property and persons within the limits thereof.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tassie v. Continental Oil Co. · Yeager v. Foster

3. “The law does not require that the parties to a contract agree upon a place for the performance of their contract, but it permits them to so agree. When, at the time of contracting, the parties have agreed upon a particular county wherein they mutually intended their contract was to be performed, such agreement will be respected and given effect, for it is a part of the freedom of contract to select the place where a contract shall be performed. In order to give full affect to the mutual intention of parties, the legislature has enacted, as a permissive exception to the general venue rule declared in the first sentence of section 93-2904 an additional provision, appearing in the second sentence of the section, designating the county wherein, at the time of contracting, the parties had agreed their contract was to be performed as a proper county for the trial of an action based thereon. This performance exception, however, applies only to such actions as are based upon contracts which plainly show, either (a) by their express terms, or (b) by necessary implication therefrom, that the contracting parties, at the time of contracting, did mutually agree upon a particular county, other than that of defendant's residence, wherein they intended that their contract was to be performed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. McNussen v. Graybeal