Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 183 Minn. 481 - Proper v. Proper

Proper v. Proper’s Empirical Analysis

1931

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
states following
January 1990
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 1990

7 state decisions

101931194019501960197019801990decided

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 Neblett v. Macfarland · I. L. Corse & Co. v. Minnesota Grain Co. · Clark v. Wells · Kirby v. Dean · Gates v. Raymond

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

  1. ““* * * ‘That a party seeking rescission of a contract must return, or offer to return, what he has received under it, and thus put the other party as nearly as is possible in his situation before the contract, is the law. But this rule is wholly an equitable one; impossible or unreasonable things, which do not tend to accomplish equity in the particular transaction, are not required.’ ””
    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.