Montgomery v. Wise’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘ ‘ The rule is universal that in the sale of land where the promise to pay the purchase money, and maim a deed, are mutual and dependent covenants, the vendor, in an action to recover the purchase money, must either offer to convey or tender a deed. [Olmstead v. Smith, 87 Mo. 602 ; Davis v. Barada-Ghio Real Estate Co., 115 Mo. App. 327 ; Pursley v. Good, 91 Mo. App. 382 .] But it was said in the last case that if one party repudiates the contract or has placed himself in a condition that prevents him from so doing, this dispenses with the necessity of proving tender. And it was so said in Harwood v. Diemer, 41 Mo. App. 48 , and further that, after a party to a contract has repudiated it, he is not entitled to a tender of performance by the other contracting party.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 206 Mo. App. 662 - Norton v. W. E. Stewart Land Co.

2. ““ ‘The count for money had and received is a very important one, and in some respects differs from all other common law actions. It is a sort of connecting link between law and equity, and by the use of the very convenient fiction of an implied promise this count will lie to recover any money which defendant has received, or in any manner obtained possession of, which in equity and good faith and conscience he ought to pay over to plaintiff.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Millican, Inc. v. Mr. Steak, Inc.