Flitch v. Boyle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Plaintiff’s petition alleged that in 1928 plaintiff and one E. E. Boyle agreed to embark on a joint adventure whose purpose was to procure oil and gas leases and royalty interests.in Ellis and other western-Kansas counties and to hold and later dispose of them at a profit to their mutual advantage. Plaintiff’s contribution to this joint adventure was to be that of locating and procuring such oil and gas interests, and Boyle’s contribution was to be that of advancing the requisite funds to pay for them. Boyle was to take title in his own name, and when any property so acquired should be sold at a profit Boyle was to be recouped for his cash outlay and the net profit divided between them. “On November 17, 1928, pursuant to this agreement, plaintiff found a 200-acre tract of land in Ellis county on which one Scanlon held both the lease and royalty rights. Scanlon was willing to sell one-fourth of the royalty interest for $1,000, and also to sell the lease itself for $160. Plaintiff submitted Scanlon’s offer to Boyle, and a contract for the acquisition of these interests was closed, and Boyle furnished the money according to the oral arrangement between him and plaintiff. Scanlon executed a conveyance of the royalty interest on November 17, 1928, to Boyle, and the same was recorded on December 3, 1928. The petition further alleged that some two months later, on January 24, 1929, Boyle executed to his brother, L. S. Boyle, defendant herein, a deed conveying to him the royalty int”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Flitch v. Boyle

2. ““Between the parties to such a contract the statute of limitations would not begin to run until some breach of trust or of other fiduciary duty owed by one of the joint adventurers to the other had been committed, nor until the latter had been apprised of it or of facts which prudently should have put him on inquiry. . . .” (p. 602, 603.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jennings v. Jennings

3. ““. . . Ordinarily the period of time limited for the commencement of an action against a trustee does not begin until he repudiates the trust or denies his liability, and it should appear that the beneficiary had, or ought to have had, knowledge of such repudiation or denial before the statutory period begins to run. . . .” (p. 285.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jennings v. Jennings