159 Ind. App. 324 - Goff v. Graham’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably 160 Ind. App. 310 - Link v. Sun Oil Company (1974), 176 Ind. App. 141 - Blaising v. Mills (1978)
3 federal appellate · 56 state decisions
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 Skendzel v. Marshall · Muehlman v. Keilman · 154 Ind. App. 283 - Standard Land Corporation of Indiana v. Bogardus · Devine v. Grace Construction and Supply Co. · Ross v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The extent to which the injured party will obtain the substantial benefit which he could have reasonably anticipated; (2) The extent to which the injured party may be adequately compensated in damages for lack of complete performance; (3) The extent to which the party failing to perform has already partly performed or made preparations for performance; (4) The greater or less hardship on the party failing to perform in terminating the contract; (5) The willful, negligent or innocent behavior of the party failing to perform; and (6) The greater or less uncertainty that the party failing to perform will perform the remainder of the contract.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage““A forfeiture — like a strict foreclosure at common law— is often offensive to our concepts of justice and inimical to the principles of equity. This is not to suggest that a forfeiture is an inappropriate remedy for the breach of all land contracts. In the case of an abandoning, absconding vendee, forfeiture is a logical and equitable remedy. Forfeiture would also be appropriate where the vendee has paid a.minimal amount of the contract at the time of default and seeks to retain possession while the vendor is paying taxes, insurance, and other upkeep in order to preserve the premises. Of course, in this latter situation, the vendee will have acquired very little, if any, equity in the property. However, a court of equity must always approach forfeitures with great caution, being forever aware of the possibility of inequitable dispossession of property and exhorbitant monetary loss. We are persuaded that forfeiture may only be appropriate under circumstances’in which it is found to be consonant with notions of fairness and justice under the law.” (Emphasis added)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“While forfeitures are never favored in law, yet when ... it appears that the contracting parties agreed that a forfeiture should take place, upon the failure of one of the parties to the contract to comply with a material part thereof, courts will decree a forfeiture.”
2 later decisions 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.