Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 164 U.S. 418 - Warner v. Texas P Ry Co

Warner v. Texas P Ry Co’s Empirical Analysis

164 U.S. 418 · 1896

Citation profile

256
cited by 256 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
27
states following
July 2023
most recently cited

71 federal appellate · 12 district · 117 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 256 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2023 · most notably North Shore Bottling Co. v. C. Schmidt & Sons, Inc. (1968), South Cherry Street, LLC v. Hennessee Group LLC (2009)

71 federal appellate · 12 district · 117 state decisions — followed in 27 states

35018961900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Abraham Pennock v. Adam Dialogue · McDonald v. Hovey · Packet Company v. Sickles · McPherson v.

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

  1. ““upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof, unless the agreement upon which such action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, shall be in' writing.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The parties may well have expected that the contract would continue in force for more than one year; it may have been very improbable that it would not do so; and it did in fact continue in force for a much longer time. But they made no stipulation which in terms, or by reasonable inference, required that result. The question is not what the probable, or expected, or actual performance of the contract was; but whether the contract, according to the reasonable interpretation of its terms, required that it should not be performed within the year. [ 164 U.S. at 434 , 17 S. Ct. at 153 , 41 L. Ed. at 504 .]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““An agreement which may or may not be performed within a year is not required by the statute of frauds to be in writing; it must appear from the agreement itself that it is not to be performed within a year.””
    2 later decisions 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.