Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 155 U.S. 550 - McCabe v. Matthews

McCabe v. Matthews’s Empirical Analysis

155 U.S. 550 · 1895

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
July 1990
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 6 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1990 · most notably Di Giovanni v. Camden Fire Insurance (1935), City of Omaha v. Omaha Water Co. (1910)

11 federal appellate · 6 district · 14 state decisions

15018951900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Willard v. Tayloe · Hennessey v. Woolworth · Loud v. Pomona Land & Water Co. · Partt and of Others v. Carroll

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

  1. ““So that we have presented the case of one who, investing $1 in the proposed purchase of land and doing nothing to assist his vendor in furnishing the property or performing the work necessary to be furnished and performed by such vendor to acquire .the title to the land, waits nine years after his contract has been entered into, nearly nine years after he has good reason to believe that such vendor repudiates all liability under the contract, nearly five years after notice has been given by such vendor of his acquisition of the title by filing the deeds in the public records, two years after he receives actual notice of that fáet, and then, without the tender of any money or other consideration, appeals to a court of equity to compel such vendor to deed to him an interest in land worth at the time of his contract only $150, and now $7,500. It seems to us to be a ease of a purely speculative contract on the part of the plaintiff. Doing nothing himself, he waits many years to see what the outcome of .the purchase by the defendant shall be. If such purchase proves a profitable investment, he will demand his share; if unprofitable, he will let it alone. Under those circumstances, the long delay is such laches as forbids a court of equity to interfere.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It seems to us to be a case of a purely speculative contract on the part of the plaintiff; doing nothing himself, he waits many years to see what the outcome of the purchase by defendant shall be. If 'such purchase proves a profitable investment, he will demand his share; if unprofitable, he will let it alone. Under those circumstances the long delay is such laches as forbids a court of equity to interfere.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““A decree for tbe specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate does not go as a matter of course, but is granted or withheld according as equity and justice seem to demand, in view of all the circumstances of the case.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.