Lewis v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 171 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 218 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Fitz-Gerald v. Hull (1951), Brown v. Cole (1956)
23 federal appellate · 171 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 Brooks v. Martin · Labbe v. Corbett · American National Insurance Co. v. Tabor · Floyd v. Patterson · Great Northern Railway Co. v. Delmar Co.
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 218 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The general rule that denies relief to a party to an illegal contract is ex-, pressed in the maxim, In pari delicto potior est conditio defendantis. 17 C.J.S. Contracts Sec. 272, p. 656. The rule is adopted, not for the benefit of either party and not to punish either of themj but for the benefit of the public. 12 Am.Jur. p. 729, Sec. 214. In many cases relief is granted to the party who is not in pari delicto. American National Ins. Co. v. Tabor, 111 Tex. 155 , 230 S.W. 397 ; Pioneer Mutual Compensation Corp. v. Diaz, 142 Tex. 184 , 177 S.W.2d 202 ; Graham v. Dean, 144 Tex. 61 , 188 S.W.2d 372 ; 12 Am.Jur. pp. 734, 735, Sec. 217. It has been said that even where the parties are in pari delicto relief will sometimes be granted if public policy demands it. 12 Am.Jur. pp. 729, 730, Sec. 214. There is often involved, in reaching a decision as to granting or withholding relief, the question whether the policy against assisting a wrongdoer outweighs the policy against permitting unjust enrichment of one party at the expense of the other. The solution of the question depends upon the peculiar facts and the equities of the case, and the answer usually given is that which it is thought will better serve public policy. Graham v. Dean, 144 Tex. 61 , 188 S.W.2d 372 ; Scott’s The Law of Trusts, Vol. 3, pp. 2196-2197, Sec. 422; Benefits under Illegal Transactions, by John W. Wade, 25 Tex.Law Review, pp. 31-62.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘A contract to do a thing which cannot be performed without a violation of the law is void.’ Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n v. Tabor, Tex.Com.App., 283 S.W. 779, 780 . See also 12 Am.Jur. pp. 647, 648, Sec. 153. But where the illegality does not appear on the face of the contract it will not be held void unless the facts showing its illegality are before the court. [Citations omitted]. When two constructions of a contract are possible, preference will be given to that which does not result in violation of law. [Citations omitted]. A contract that could have been performed in a legal manner will not be declared void because it may have been performed in an illegal manner.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The general rule is that ‘no accounting or recovery of profits can be had by one party to an illegal transaction against another;’ Williston on Contracts (1938) Vol. 6, p. 5069, Sec. 1785. It has been thus stated: ‘The rule supported by the weight of authority is that the courts will not aid in the division of the profits of an illegal transaction between associates, although there are cases which hold that, in the case of a completed transaction, one of the associates in possession of the proceeds cannot set up the illegality as against the claims of the others.’ 17 C.J.S., Contracts, § 277, pp. 664-665. “Among the cases holding that between partners there may be an accounting of profits or assets acquired from illegal transactions are Pfeuffer v. Maltby, 54 Tex. 454 ; De Leon v. Trevino, 49 Tex. 88 , and Brooks v. Martin, 2 Wall. 70 , 17 L.Ed. 732 . The opinion in Wiggins v. Bisso, 92 Tex. 219 , 47 S.W. 637, 639 , discusses the peculiar facts of those cases and thus approves the principle that controlled the decision of them: ‘There can be no doubt that where the parties have jointly, in the pursuit of an illegal purpose, acquired money, and invested that money in property which is in the possession of one of the joint owners, such possessor cannot resist the claim of the other on the ground of the illegality of the business in which the money was first acquired. It was not necessary for plaintiff to prove the partnership, because the cotton was bought for the firm not in ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Langford v. Pickens
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.