Waterman v. Banks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 federal appellate · 12 district · 105 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 179 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The rule is well expressed in Lord Ranelagh v. Melton, 2 Drewry & Smale, 278, 281, where it was said: ‘No doubt, if an owner of land and an intending purchaser enter into a contract, constituting between them the relation of vendor and purchaser, and there is a stipulation in the contract that the purchase money shall be paid and the contract completed on a certain day, this court, in ordinary cases, has established the principle that time is not of the essence of the contract, and that the circumstances of the day fixed for the payment of the money and the completion of the purchase being past does not entitle either party to refuse to complete. On the other hand, it is well settled that, 'when there is a contract between the owner of land and another person, that, if such person shall do a specified act, then he (the owner) will convey the land to him in fee, the relation of vendor and purchaser does not exist between the parties unless and until the act has been done as specified. The court regards it as the ease of a condition on the performance of which the party performing it is entitled to a certain benefit, but in order to obtain such benefit he must perform the condition strictly. Therefore, if there be a day fixed for its performance, the lapse of that day without its being performed prevents him from claiming the benefit.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rickard v. Taylor · Fritsch v. Wepking

2. “There can be no question but that when an offer is made for a time limited in the offer itself, no acceptance afterwards will make it binding.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sullivan v. Economic Research Properties · Ocean Atlantic Development Corporation v. Aurora Christian Schools, Inc., Ocean Atlantic Chicago Corporation v. Dale Konicek, Wayne Konicek, Lois Konicek, and Isenstein-Pasquinelli, L.L.C.

3. ““•‘Time may become of the essence of a contract for the sale of property, not only by the express terms of the parties, but from the very nature of the property itself; mining property requires the parties interested in it to be vigilant and active in asserting their rights. ’ . . . The reason of this rule is that mining property is of that peculiar character that it is subject to -frequent, sudden or great- fluctuation in value, and to permit an advantage to be gained or great loss to be suffered by long and unreasonable delay in demanding a conveyance or the money stipulated to be paid for such land would constitute the transaction an unconseientious one. . . . “If, then, it was his intention or desire to secure the conveyance, he should have been active and vigilant in the matter of the enforcement of his rights' thereunder, and not have been guilty of that procrastination or inaction or passiveness which will be held to constitute acquiescence in the breach of a contract of this character or to raise the presumption of the abandonment thereof.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 67 Cal. App. 2d 499 - Kersch v. Taber