Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 186 ALA 475 - Moss v. King

Moss v. King’s Empirical Analysis

1914

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
2
states following
September 2008
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently September 2008

21 state decisions

1101914192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Elliott v. Howison · Elmore, Quillian & Co. v. Parrish Bros. · Mayor of Ensley v. Hollingsworth · Drake v. Goree · Terrell v. Nelson

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

  1. ““But we are awai;e of no authority which holds that the plaintiff need not show his readiness and ability to perform, even when the defendant has repudiated the contract. On. the contrary, affirmative authority is not lacking. In an action for damages for breach of an agreement to sell and deliver flour, with the allegation that the defendant refused to comply with his contract and refused to ship the flour, an instruction to the jury that, ‘there being no evidence before them that plaintiff had offered to pay, or was able to pay, for the flour, before bringing this suit, they must find for the defendant,’ was held correct. Offutt v. Wells, 42 Ala. 199, 200 . There was no objection to the complaint for omitting the allegation of ability to perform,, but proof of it was held essential. See, also, Terrell v. Nelson, 177 Ala. 596 , 58 South. 989 .””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Hence it is universally held that, in an action by either party for the breach of a dependent covenant, he cannot proceed against the other without either actual or tendered performance, or a readiness and ability to perform; and an allegation "to that effect must be made in the declaration, and it must be supported by proof. * * * And the same rule of pleading and proof obtains in courts of chancery.””
    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.