Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 21 FLA 392 - Jones v. McCallum

Jones v. McCallum’s Empirical Analysis

1885

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
July 2019
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently July 2019

3 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

3018851890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

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

  1. “[t]he law aptly terms an agreement to do an act or to pay money or other thing where there is no consideration for it a nudum pactum -a naked agreement-a promise without legal support, which the law will not enforce, no matter whether verbal or written, or however earnestly and solemnly made.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"* * * If no service was performed no pay was due. The practical result of a want of consideration and failure of consideration are the same. In the first case the agreement is void; in the second the agreement is valid at the time of making, but cannot be enforced because of subsequent failure of the consideration on which it was based." [Emphasis theirs.] but, "* * * `had anything been done by McCallum under the contract we admit that Jones might have been liable for the full years compensation' * *". (Emphasis ours.)”
    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.