Wallerius v. Hare’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 district · 24 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘A condition precedent is something that it is agreed must happen or be performed before a right can accrue to enforce the main contract. It is one without the performance of which the contract, although in form executed and delivered by the parties, cannot be enforced. A condition precedent requires the performance of some act or tire happening of some event after tire terms of the contract, including the condition precedent, have been agreed on before the contract shall take effect.’ ” 1 Kan. App. 2d at 439 -40 (quoting Wallerius v. Hare, 194 Kan. 408, 412 , 399 P.2d 543 [1965]).”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. v. Integrated Financial Services, Inc. · Sweet v. Stormont Vail Regional Medical Center

2. “[a] party to a contract cannot derive any benefit or escape any liability from his own failure to cause or failure to seek the happening of a condition precedent.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 29 Kan. App. 2d 797 - White v. Allied Mutual Insurance · 42 Kan. App. 2d 148 - Premier Realty, LLC v. I.T.J. Investments, Inc.

3. ““The appellees contend that the cancellation of the lease was a condition precedent to the formation of a contract and that it was essential that appellant plead definite fulfillment of the condition, i. e., that the lease was actually cancelled. “The appellant contends that the condition contained in appellees’ telegram and accepted by appellant was incorporated in the original offer and a complete contract was consummated but that the cancellation of the lease was a condition precedent to requiring performance of the contract which was complete in all of its terms. Appellant further contends that having bound himself to pay any expenses incurred, or damages assessed against appellees in their attempt to obtain cancellation of the pasture lease, they were bound to exercise a reasonable effort to cancel the lease. “We are inclined to agree with appellant’s contention.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wallerius v. Hare