Ray v. Eurice’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 18 district · 127 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 155 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Slice v. Carozza Properties, Inc. (1990), Kasten Construction Co. v. Rod Enterprises, Inc. (1973)
6 federal appellate · 18 district · 127 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 Vincent v. Palmer · McKeever v. Washington Heights Realty Corp. · Markoff v. Kreiner · Spitze v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad · Aetna Indemnity, Co. v. John Waters
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 155 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"If we assume the view as to mistake held by Judge Gontrum, in effect the mistake . .. was an unilateral one. It consisted, in the opinion of the Court, in the Eurice Corporation thinking it was assenting to its own specifications, while in form it was assenting to the Ray specifications. If there was such a mistake, the legal result the Court found to follow, we think does not follow.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he clear and unambiguous language of an agreement will not give way to what the parties thought the agreement meant or intended to mean; where a contract is plain and unambiguous, there is no room for construction, and it must be presumed that the parties meant what they expressed; and when the language of a contract is clear, the true test of what is meant is not what the parties to the contract intended it to mean, but what a reasonable person in the position of the parties would have thought it meant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A contract has, strictly speaking, nothing to do with the personal, or individual intent of the parties. A contract is an obligation attached by the mere force of law to certain acts of the parties, usually words, which ordinarily accompany and represent a known intent. If, however, it were proved by twenty bishops that either parly, when he used the words, intended something else than the usual meaning which the law imposes upon them, he would still be held, unless there were some mutual mistake, or something else of the sort.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.