Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 186 SW2D 364 - Grindstaff v. Mather

Grindstaff v. Mather’s Empirical Analysis

1945

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
August 1983
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently August 1983

2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

3019451950196019701980decided

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 State v. De Gress · Magnolia Provision Co. v. Coleman · Hausler v. Harding-Gill Co. · 47 Tex. Civ. App. 336 - Myers v. State · Hayes v. City of Nashville

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

  1. ““The rule of law is well settled in this State, as well as every other State in the Union, that when a vendee breaches the covenants of a contract which contains provisions entitling ' the vendor to declare a forfeiture on account of such breach, the taking advantage of, and declaring upon, such forfeiture does not constitute a rescission of the contract. Rescission is basically an equitable remedy and terminates the contract by a method not necessarily authorized by the agreement. It extinguishes the contract despite its provisions, which may contemplate a totally different result, while a forfeiture declared upon pursuant to the terms of the contract executes the agreement as effectually as performance itself.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “"Rescission and forfeiture are similar remedies, in that either one terminates the contract. Nevertheless, they are clearly distinguishable. The vendor's purpose in resorting to rescission is to abrogate the contract and restore the parties, so far as may be, to the positions they respectively occupied before the contract was made. But a forfeiture is the assertion of a right granted by the contract and is declared pursuant to the contract. The remedy of rescission is also wholly distinct from and independent of a foreclosure of the vendor's lien."”
    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.