Ware v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis
128 U.S. 590 · 1888
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 9 district · 107 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 183 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2008 · most notably Standard Paint Company v. Trinidad Asphalt Manufacturing Company (1911), Burke v. Dulaney (1894)
48 federal appellate · 9 district · 107 state decisions — followed in 31 states
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 Insurance Company v. Mowry · Bank of United States v. Dunn · Martin v. Cole · Forsythe v. Kimball
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 183 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. “This evidence shows that the contract upon which this suit is brought never went into effect, that the condition upon which it was to become operative never occurred, and that it is' not a question of contradicting or varying a written instrument by parol testimony, but that it is one of that class of cases-well recognized in the law by which an instrument, whether delivered to a third person as an escrow or to the obligee in it, is made to depend, as to its going into operation, upon events to occur or to be ascertained thereafter.”' Ware v. Allen, 128 U. S. 590 , 595, 596, 9 Sup. Ct. 174 , 176, 32 L. Ed. 563 . Michels v. Olmstead, 157 U. S. 198 , 201, 15 Sup. Ct. 580 , 39 L. Ed. 671 ; Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Wilson, 187 U. S. 467 , 474, 23 Sup. Ct. 189 , 47 L. Ed. 261 .”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“West & Bush, the facts were that one T. P. Ware, a brother of plaintiff, was indebted to the defendants for merchandise in the sum of $18,000. His business was conducted by the plaintiff, and was so embarrassed that the debts could not be paid. Plaintiff a year or two before had conducted a business in his own name at the same place, and, being likely to fail, had sold out his business to his brother, but, os tensibly as the agent of the latter, continued to manage and control it. In this condition of affairs plaintiff visited Allen,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Colvin v. Goff““Parol evidence is admissible in an action between the parties, to show that a written instrument executed and delivered by the party obligor to the party obligee, absolute on its face, was conditional ánd was not indeed to take effect until another event should take place.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Metzger v. Roberts
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.