Williams v. Barbee’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
4 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently April 1979
4 district · 5 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 Suburban Homes Co. v. North · Wheeling & Elm Grove R. R. v. Town of Triadelphia · Maffet v. Oregon & Cal. Railroad · Coquille Mill & Tug Co. v. Robert Dollar Co. · Oconto Co. v. Bacon
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is fundamental that equity will not lend its aid to an attempt to enforce a forfeiture. But that is not the purpose of this suit. The contract in the instant case was terminated pursuant to its provisions; and the forfeiture was an accomplished fact at the time that the suit was instituted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The heavy losses sustained, by the [purchasers] are regrettable, but they were not due to any fault of the [vendors], who did no more than act upon their legal rights in the face, not of a technical or trivial, but a very substantial breach by the [purchasers].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[W]e think that, since the [vendors] are here invoking equitable relief, the question is properly before us for determination.”
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.