Kohanowski v. Burkhardt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “To take a contract out of the statute of frauds, the party seeking to enforce the oral contract must establish part performance that is not only consistent with, but that is consistent only with, the existence of the alleged oral contract. As we explained in Rickert , at ¶ 14: When it is alleged that partial performance removes an unwritten agreement from the statute of frauds, the most important question is whether the part performance is consistent only with the existence of the alleged oral contract. In re Estate of Thompson, 2008 ND 144, ¶ 12 , 752 N.W.2d 624 ; Fladeland v. Gudbranson, 2004 ND 118, ¶ 8 , 681 N.W.2d 431 ; Johnson Farms v. McEnroe, 1997 ND 179, ¶19 , 568 N.W.2d 920 . As further clarified in Estate of Thompson , at ¶ 13 (quoting Anderson v. Mooney, 279 N.W.2d 423, 429 (N.D.1979)): “ ‘Another requirement of the doctrine * * * is that the acts relied upon as constituting part performance must unmistakably point to the existence of the claimed agreement. If they point to some other relationship ... or may be accounted for on some other hypothesis, they are not sufficient.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bloomquist v. Goose River Bank

2. “This Court has not previously applied the doctrine of partial performance to allow enforcement of an oral agreement not to be performed within one year, and has questioned its applicability in such cases: This Court has previously questioned whether the doctrine of partial performance applies to an oral agreement which by its terms cannot be performed within one year and which does not involve real estate: We also observe that the general rule is that under provisions similar to Section 9-06-04(1), N.D.C.C., contracts which cannot be performed within one year are not taken out of the statute of frauds by part performance. However, that general rule is subject to an exception for cases involving real estate. Thompson [v. North Dakota Workers’ Comp. Bureau], 490 N.W.2d [248,] 252 n. 3 (citations omitted); see 73 Am. Jur.2d Statute of Frauds § 419 (2001); 37 C.J.S. Frauds, Statute of § 191 (2008).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bloomquist v. Goose River Bank

3. “The language of N.D.C.C. § 9-06-04(1) is clear and unambiguous and applies to an agreement that “by its terms is not to be performed within a year.” Bergquist-Walker and Delzer both involved broad, open-ended agreements that did not include express terms specifying a time of performance. Thus, the agreements in those cases were capable of being performed within one year under the express terms of the agreements. When an oral agreement includes express terms setting specific times for performance extending beyond one year from the date of the agreement, however, it is not an agreement capable of being performed “by its terms” within one year, and it is barred by the statute of frauds. 1”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bloomquist v. Goose River Bank