Berline v. Waldschmidt’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently September 1996 · most notably State Ex Rel. Stephan v. Kansas Racing Commission (1990), T.S.I. Holdings, Inc. v. Jenkins (1996)
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 20 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 Marrs v. City of Oxford · Texas Power & Light Co. v. Fairbanks, Morse & Co.
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where in an action to extend the tenn of a mineral deed, which would otherwise expire, for such period as war-time regulations make it unlawful to drill a test well on the land covered hy its terms, it appears from an examination of the petition and inferences properly to be drawn therefrom that the happening of the event relied on as the basis for such extension was not provided for by the terms of the instrument, and it further appears that such supervening event was one which could have been reasonably foreseen by the parties and provision made for therein, such petition fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and a demurrer thereto was properly sustained.” (Syl. f 1.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The doctrine of commercial frustration is predicated upon the premises of giving relief in a situation where the parties could not reasonably protect themselves by the terms of a contract against the happening of subsequent events, but it has no application to a situation where the event that has supervened to cause the alleged frustration was reasonably foreseeable and could and should have been controlled by provisions of such contract.” (Syl. 12.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * where the subject-matter of the contract has been destroyed or the event creating the impossibility is one which could not reasonably be supposed to have been within the contemplation of the contracting parties, the promissor is discharged from the performance of the contract or the obligation to answer in damages.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.