Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 21 NY 399 - Gardner v. . Clark

Gardner v. . Clark’s Empirical Analysis

1860

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
February 1962
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1962 · most notably Roberts v. Lewis (1892), Louisville Home Telephone Co. v. Beeler's Admx. (1907)

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 22 state decisions

9018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

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

  1. ““It is impossible, I think, to sustain the position here taken by the judge. "Upon what principie the omission by the defendant to insist upon his right to payment as to some of the loads of barley delivered can operate as a waiver of his right as to the residue. I am unable to perceive. There would, perhaps, be a legal difficulty in the way of its having this effect, even if so ini ended. A waiver, like a gift, can only operate in praesenti. When intended io operate in futuro, it is at most only an agreement to waive, which, it would seem, must, like all other agreements, have a consideration. * * The contract bound Gardner to have the money ready, at all times, at the place of delivery, to pay for each load as it should arrive; and although he might have some reason to suppose, from the delivery of several loads without requiring payment, that the defendant did not intend to insist upon payment in hand for the subsequent loads, yet this mere supposition could nbt release him from the positive obligation of his contract.””
    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.