McDonald v. Lund’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 25 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘ ‘ The transaction that is alleged to be illegal here,— that is, the carrying on of games of chance, — is completed and closed, and cannot in any manner be affected by what the court is asked to do between the parties to this action. “Again, this is not a case to enforce any illegal contract, but it is to assert title to money which was accumulated under such illegal contract. If the plaintiff here had brought an action against the defendant for not complying with his contract in running these games, of course it would fall within the rule claimed by the respondent, but here the real contract on which he sues, it seems to us, is a contract of deposit. Under the stipulated facts the illegal transaction which these parties had agreed , to pursue had ended. The partnership for that purpose was no longer in existence. The business was no longer being carried on. A determination of the amount of money due from the defendant to the plaintiff had been reached. It was agreed that the defendant owed the plaintiff the sum of money sued for, and that he was entitled to that amount, and the plaintiff’s portion was simply left with the defendant on deposit. It is true that it was not segregated from the money belonging to the defendant and the other partner, but that would have been a purely physical 'transaction which could not have affected the result in any way, and it would have made no difference in the right or wrong of the case whether the money had been actually counted out to th”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 24 Wash. 2d 145 - Melton v. United Retail Merchants · Central Labor Council of Tacoma v. Young

2. ““The court, below was of the opinion that the case fell within the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio, and dismissed the action. It is conceded by the appellant that courts will decline to lend their aid to the enforcement of an executory contract which has for its object the performance of some act or the accomplishment of some end which is contrary to law or a sound public policy, and this whether the act or end contemplated by the contract is a felony or misdemeanor at law. It is conceded that the business in which these parties were engaged was an illegal one by express statutory provision. It is insisted, however, by the appellant, that this case does not fall within the rule above conceded, but within one of the limitations of such rule; that the obligation of the respondent in this case was a collateral obligation in a manner connected with or growing out of the illegal transaction, but that it is not an attempt to enforce the illegal contract; that the illegal contract had been fully executed, and that there is a new, independent and implied contract which the plaintiff will not be precluded from enforcing.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2 Wash. App. 703 - Sherwood & Roberts-Yakima, Inc. v. Cohan · 24 Wash. 2d 145 - Melton v. United Retail Merchants