Moore v. Beiseker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is a wholesome rule of law, instinct with fair play, expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne, in Railway Company v. McCarthy, 96 U. S. (6 Otto) 267, 24 L. Ed. 693 : ‘Where a party gives a reason for his conduct and decision touching anything involved in a controversy, he cannot, after litigation has begun, change liis ground, and put his conduct upon another and different consideration. He is not permitted thus to mend his hold. He is estopped from doing it by a settled principio of law.’ “This principle has been applied in Ihe following instances: Davis v. Wakelee, 156 U. S. 690 , 15 Sup. Ct. 555 , 39 L. Ed. 578 , where a bankrupt obtained Ms discharge, claiming that the judgment against him was not affected by it, it was held he could not, in a subsequent action on the judgment, deny its validity. In Davis, etc., Company v. Dix (C. C.) 64 Fed. 411 , where it was held that the purchasers of a creamery repudiating the contract on the ground of fraudulent representations, could not thereafter set up an interpolation in the contract. In Harriman v. Meyer, 45 Ark. 40 , where it was held that the defense that a tender was not made in ready money was not admissible where the prior objection was to inadequacy of price. In Wallace v. Minneapolis, etc., Elevator Company, 37 Minn. 465 , 35 N. W. 269 , where it was held that a bailee refusing to deliver wheat because claimed by another, could not after-wards refuse on the ground that the charges were not paid. In Harris v. Chipman, 9 Utah,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Board of Trustees for Regina Public School Dist. No. 4 of Saskatchewan v. Spitzer

2. ““Courts may use the actual construction put thereon by the conduct of the parties under the contract as a controlling circumstance to determine the construction which should be put upon the contract in enforcing the rights of the parties. The most satisfactory test of ascertaining the true meaning of a contract is by putting ourselves ‘in the place of the contracting parties when it was made, and then considering, in view of all the facts and circumstances surrounding them at the time it was made, what the parties intended by the terms of their agreement.’ And when this intention is made clear by the course of their subsequent dealing and action thereon, it must prevail in the interpretation of the instrument, regardless of inapt expressions or careless recitations.”'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Texas Star Flour Mills Co. v. Moore

3. ““There lias never been any rule of construction of contracts more instinct with the spirit of justice and practical sense than that which declares that, where the provisions of a contract become the subject of controversy between the parties, the practical interpretation placed thereon by their acts, conduct, and declarations is of controlling force. This for the reason that the interest of each leads him to a construction most favorable to himself, and, when differences have become serious and beyond amicable adjustment, it is the better arbiter.” *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Texas Star Flour Mills Co. v. Moore