Johnson v. Coss’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 6 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Behrens v. Wedmore (2005), Weitzel v. Sioux Valley Heart Partners (2006)
2 federal appellate · 6 district · 17 state decisions
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 Moore Brothers Company v. Brown & Root Incorporated Highlands Insurance Company Toll Road Investors Partnership II Lp Moore Brothers Company · Hofeldt v. Mehling · Braun v. New Hope Township · Rohde v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance · Farmers Feed & Seed, Inc. v. Magnum Enterprises, Inc.
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A condition precedent is a contract term distinguishable from a normal contractual promise in that it does not create a right or duty, but instead is a limitation on the contractual obligations of the parties. “A condition precedent is a fact or event which [sic] the parties intend must exist or take place before there is a right to performance. A condition is •distinguished from a promise in that it creates no right or duty in and of itself but is merely a limiting or modifying factor.... If the ’ condition is not fulfilled, the right to enforce the contract does not come into existence.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Where a duty of one party is subject to the occurrence of a condition, the additional duty of good faith and fair dealing imposed on him ... may require some cooperation on his part, either by refraining from conduct that will prevent or hinder the occurrence of that condition or by taking affirmative steps to cause its occurrence.... [N]on-performance of that duty when performance is due is a breach.... [I]t has the further effect of excusing the non-occurrence of the condition itself, so that performance of the duty that was originally subject to its occurrence can become due in spite of its non-occurrence.”
2 later decisions 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.