Riggles v. Erney’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 federal appellate · 17 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Indeed, the rule is too well settled to require further citation of authorities, ihat if the parol agreement be clearly a.nd satisfactorily proven, and the plaintiff. relying upon such agreement and tliepromise of the defendant toperform his part, lias done acts in part performance of such agreement, to the knowledge of the defendant, — acts which have so altered the relations of the parties as to prevent their restoration to their former condition, — it would be a virtual fraud to allow the defendant to interpose the statute as a defense, and thus to secure to himself the benefit of what has been done in part performance. It must appear, however, that the acts done by the plaintiff were done in pursuance of the contract, and for the purpose of carrying it into execution, and with the consent or knowledge of tlie other party. While acts done prior to tlie contract, or preparatory thereto, such as delivering abstracts of title, measuring the land, drawing up deeds, etc., are not regarded as sufficient part performance, it is otherwise with such acts as taking open possession of the land sold, or making permanent or valuable improvements thereon, or doing other acts in relation to the land manifestly inconsistent with any other theory than that of carrying out the parol undertaking.””

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

2. ““Indeed, the rule is too well settled to require further citation of authorities that, if the parol agreement be clearly and satisfactorily proven, and the plaintiff, relying upon such agreement and the promise of the defendant to perform his part, has done acts in part performance of such agreement to the knowledge of the defendant, — acts which have so altered the relations •of the parties as to prevent their restoration to their former condition, — it wóuld be a virtual fraud to allow tbe defendant to interpose tbe statute as a defense, and thus to secure to bimself tbe benefit of wbat bas been done in part performance. It must appear, however, that tbe acts done by tbe plaintiff were done in pursuance of tbe contract, and for tbe purpose of carrying it into execution, and with tbe consent or knowledge of tbe other party. While acts done prior to tbe contract or preparatory thereto, such as delivering abstracts of title, measuring land, drawing up deeds, etc., are not regarded as sufficient part performance, it is otherwise with such acts as taking open possession of tbe land sold, or making permanent or valuable improvements thereon, or doing other acts in relation to tbe land manifestly inconsistent with any' other theory than that of carrying out tbe parol undertaking.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People's Pure Ice Co. v. Trumbull

3. ““That the proof as to the terms of the contract must he clear, definite, and conclusive, and must show a contract, leaving no jus deliverandi or locus peni-tentise; that it cannot he made out by mere hearsay or evidence of the declarations of a party to mere strangers to the transaction, in chance conversation, which the witnesses have no reason to recollect from interest in the subject-matter, and which may have been imperfectly heard or inaccurately remembered, perverted, or altogether fabricated; that the proof must show that the consideration has been paid or tendered, or that there has been such part performance of the contract that its rescission would be a fraud on the other party, which could not be compensated by the recovery of damages, or that the delivery of possession has been made in pursuance of the contract, and has been acquiesced in by the other party.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harman v. Harman