Parceluk v. Knudtson’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably Johnson Farms v. McEnroe (1997), Latendresse v. Latendresse (1980)
29 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 Boekelheide v. Snyder · Andrews v. Charon · Henry S. Grinde Corporation v. Klindworth · Brey v. Tvedt · Stark County v. Koch
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“". . . whenever acts have been done which are of such a nature as to be consistent only with the existence of a contract for the sale of real property, the case is held to be taken out of the statute of frauds."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The acts relied upon for partial performance, in order to be sufficient to relieve an oral agreement from the effect of the statute of frauds, must be of such a nature as to be incomprehensible and not capable of being understood unless related to the contract to convey an interest in land, and payment of money is not enough unless followed by other acts such as possession or the making of valuable improvements. “The defendants, in order to show partial performance of an oral contract to sell the plaintiff’s interest in the real estate, must show not only the terms of such agreement — which we believe they have shown in this case — but they must also show such acts on the part of the defendants which would permit the court to find that the partial performance was substantial and that such partial performance on the part of the defendants put them in such a situation that nonperformance of the oral agreement by the plaintiff would amount to fraud upon the defendants. In other words, it must appear that the acts relied upon by the defendants have been done solely with a view to performing the oral contract which they allege plaintiff had made to sell her interest in the real estate.” 139 N.W.2d at 871-872 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Anderson v. Mooney
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.