Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 192 MO 312 - Hund v. Rackliffe

Hund v. Rackliffe’s Empirical Analysis

1905

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
1
states following
August 2011
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently August 2011

19 state decisions

70190519101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. French · Heman v. Allen · Heman v. Gilliam · City of Springfield ex rel. Central National Bank v. Weaver · Rose v. Trestrail

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

  1. ““But where, for any good reason shown, as the inability of the contractor to procure a portion of the materials necessary for the doing of the work, as appears in this case, the work cannot be completed within the contract time, it would be a narrow, strained, unnatural and unreasonable construction of the law to hold that the municipal assembly had not the power, during the life of the contract, to extend the time for the completion of the work; for such act of the municipal authorities would be a legitimate determination of what constitutes a reasonable time, and as no appreciable damages could thereby ensue to the property-owner by the extension, the courts will not interfere with the legislative determination of the reasonableness of the time for the completion of the work. The exact question here involved does not seem, heretofore, to have been adjudicated by this court, but similar conclusions to those here reached have been announced by other tribunals. (Rose v. Trestrail, 62 Mo. App. 352 ; Sparks v. Land Co., 99 Mo. App. 489 ; Jenkins v. Stetler, 118 Ind. 275 ), and the rule here laid down is within the spirit and meaning of the decision of this court in Neill v. Gates, 152 Mo. l. c. 592.””
    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.