Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 205 F.1d 24 - Pritchard v. McLeod

Pritchard v. McLeod’s Empirical Analysis

205 F. 24 · 1913

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
2
states following
November 1954
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently November 1954

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

4019131920193019401950decided

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 Nash v. Towne · Merriam v. United States · Canal Company v. Hill · Nunez v. Dautel · Page v. Cook

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

  1. ““Where the balance of the purchase price of certain mining claims was payable, only out of the gross output of the claims, defendant could not escape performance by willfully neglecting to work the claims and produce the fund from which the payments were to be made, though there was no clause in the agreement binding him to do so. “Where a contract for the sale of mining claims provided that the purchaser should pay a balance of the price only by application of 25 per cent, of the gross output of the claims, it was his duty to use reasonable diligence to create the fund by working the mines, and his failure to do so for more than four years was sufficient to raise a rebuttable presumption of breach. “Where a contract for the sale of mining claims provided that a balance, of the price should be paid out of the proceeds of the mines, it would be presumed that the claims contained mineral; and the burden was on the defendants to rebut such presumption, and show that they were barren in defense, if such was the fact.””
    1 later decision 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.