Sutherland v. Sutherland’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 37 state decisions

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

1. ““The general rule is that a contracting party is bound by an agreement to which he assents, where the assent is uninfluenced by fraud, violence, undue influence, or the like, and he will not be permitted to say he did not intend to agree to its terms. A contracting party is under a duty to learn the contents of a written contract before signing it, and if, without being a victim of fraud, he fails to read the contract or otherwise to learn its contents, he signs the same at his peril and is estopped to deny his obligations thereunder. (Ma ltby v. Sumner, 169 Kan. 417 , 219 P. 2d 395 , and authorities cited therein.) If a person cannot read an instrument, it is as much his duty to procure some reliable person to read and explain it, before he signs it, as it would be to read it before he signed it if he were able to do so, and his failure to obtain a reading and explanation of it is such gross negligence as will estop him from avoiding it on the ground that he was ignorant of its contents. (Maltby v. Sumner, supra.)” (p. 610.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Washington v. Claassen

2. ““It is now the settled law in Kansas where one in good faith asserts a claim not obviously invalid, worthless or frivolous, and which might be thought to be reasonably doubtful, the forbearance to prosecute such a claim will furnish a sufficient consideration for a promise of settlement and compromise of such claim. (Reed v. Kansas Postal Telegraph & Cable Co., 125 Kan. 603 , 264 Pac. 1065 , and authorities cited therein.) “In Shrader v. McDaniel, 106 Kan. 755 , 189 Pac. 954 , it was held: “ ‘While compromises and settlements, like other contracts, must be supported by a consideration, it is enough to support the agreement that there was a doubtful question, and where the parties to a compromise act in good faith and one agrees to pay, and the other to accept a certain sum in satisfaction of his liability upon a claim, there is sufficient consideration for the compromise.’ (Syl. ¶4.)””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. International Motor Rebuilding Co. v. United Motor Exchange, Inc.

3. ““In an action for specific performance the term ‘adequate consideration’ does not mean the full equivalent of value. It means a consideration which is not so greatly disproportionate to value as to offend against the fair dealing which should characterize business transactions.” (Syl. f 3.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Shepard v. Dick