Knoshaug v. Pollman’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
February 1980
most recently cited
2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Fedorenko v. Rudman · Daniel v. Hamilton
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Each of plaintiffs is thirty or more years of age; one is a high school graduate, the other a graduate of the eighth grade; each is a successful farmer, can read and write, and is familiar with terminology in the field of oil and gas; both were present, together, during all conferences and discussions that occurred between them and defendant; they failed to express dissatisfaction with, or complain of the transaction involved and failed to take any formal action to rescind for approximately twenty months after they were fully aware of all the facts; they have reaped, and continue to reap, the benefits of the services of defendant pursuant to a contract of employment which has been, on the part of defendant, fully performed; until the commencement of this action, all of the representations and actions of plaintiffs were consistent with the validity of the conveyance, and wholly inconsistent with an intent to avoid it. “Therefore, * * * in view of the pertinent statutes of North Dakota as interpreted by the Supreme Court of this state, plaintiffs have procrastinated too long; their delay is fatal and they have thereby waived any right they may have had to rescind.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Knoshaug v. Pollman““This memorandum will witness our understanding that you may negotiate with Amerada on the basis of Unitizing that 40 acre tract with the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section Thirty in Township 158 North Range 94 West only upon receiving a commitment from Amerada to commence in a reasonably short time (about 60 days) the drilling of an additional well on our tract of land in Section 32, Township 158 North Range 94 West. “Further, in view of the fact that your compensation will be in acreage' over the unitized tract, our conveyance to you is to be 8/40ths of the SW^ SW14 of Section 30, Township 158 North Range 94 West, (Intending eight mineral acres).””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Knoshaug v. Pollman
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.