Talbott v. Nibert’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently June 2009 · most notably Berryman v. Kmoch (1977), Wallerius v. Hare (1965)
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 24 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 Goodloe v. Jo-Mar Dairies Co. · Sterling Loan & Investment Co. v. Litel · Briney v. Toews · Rausch v. Hill · Dill v. Pope
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The rule is clear and well settled, and founded in absolute justice, that a party to a contract cannot prevent performance by another and derive any benefit, or escape any liability, from his own failure to perform a necessary condition. (Dill v. Pope, 29 Kan. 289 ; Supply Co. v. Cement Co., 91 Kan. 509 , 512 138 Pac. 599 ; Briney v. Toews, 150 Kan. 489, 495 , 95 P. 2d 355 .) And this is the universal rule. (12 Am. Jur., Contracts, §§ 381, 386; 2 C. J., Agency, § 439, p. 772; 13 C. J., Contracts, §§ 721, 722, 723; Restatement, Contracts, § 315.)””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Restrictive charter provisions concerning sales of stock are ordinarily employed to keep the association intact and to prevent transfer of stock to “outsiders”, nonstockholders, who might enter the corporation to gain information concerning it for their own selfish ends and to use it against the best interests of the corporation. Such restrictive provisions pertaining to nonstockholders are valid. Absent a clear and specific charter provision which compels an interpretation that notice is required to other stockholders in case of a sale by one stockholder to another stockholder courts generally construe such provisions to mean that stockholders are to be given an opportunity to purchase the stock only before it is offered to “outsiders”, nonstockholders. A few of the numerous cases so holding arc' Rychwalski v. Milwaukee Candy Co., 205 Wis. 193 , 236 N.W. 131 ; Serota v. Serota, 168 Misc. 27 , 5 N.Y.S.2d 68 ; Gibbon v. 3920 Lake Shore Drive Building Corporation, 310 Ill.App. 385 , 34 N.E.2d 109 ; Mason v. Mallard Telephone Co., 213 Iowa 1076 , 240 N.W. 671 ; Sterling Loan & Investment Co. v. Litel, 75 Colo. 34 , 223 P. 753 ; McDonald v. Farley & Loetscher Mfg. Co., 226 Iowa 53 , 283 N.W. 261, 263 . “The instant charter did not specifically or clearly deny the right of a stockholder to sell to another stockholder without notice to other stockholders. It is just as open, and it would seem far more so, to the interpretation that the priority referred to means that stockholders ”
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.