Sisney v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 14 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]henever two parties enter into an agreement that appears to have been made expressly for the benefit of a third party, and such agreement has a good and sufficient consideration, the agreement itself creates all the privity there need be between the person for whose benefit the agreement was entered into and the party assuming the obligation, and an action at law should lie regardless of whether there was any obligation existing between the other party to the agreement and the third party. But, before the third party can adopt the agreement entered into and recover thereon, he must show clearly that it was entered into with the intent on the part of the parties thereto that such third party should be benefited thereby. This intent might, in a given case, sufficiently appear from the contract itself, but it must frequently be shown by other proof.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. MASAD v. Weber

2. ““While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiffs obligation to provide the - grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the' elements of a cause action will not do.” The rules “contemplate a statement of circumstances,- occurrences, and events in support of the claim presented.”. Ultimately, the claim must allege facts, which, when taken -as ■ true, raise more than a speculative right to relief. Furthermore, “where the- allegations show on the face of the complaint there is some insuperable bar to relief, dismissal under Rule 12(b)( [5]) is .appropriate.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hernandez v. Avera Queen of Peace Hospital

3. “The [third-party beneficiary] statute is not applicable to every contract made by one person with another for the performance of which a third person will derive a benefit; the intent to make the contract inure to the benefit of a third party must be clearly manifested. In the language of the statute, the contract must be on[e] “made expressly for the benefit of a third person.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. MASAD v. Weber