Smith v. Farra’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 29 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘If the requisites of good faith exist,’ says Mr. Pomeroy, ‘it is not necessary that the dispute should be concerning a question really doubtful, if the parties bona fide consider it so; it is enough that there is a question between them to be settled by their compromise.’ (Pom. Eq. § 850.) And ‘no investigation into the character or value of the different claims submitted,’ says Mr. Parsons, ‘will be entered into for the purpose .of setting aside a compromise, it being sufficient, if the parties entering into the compromise, thought, at the time, that there was a dispute between them.’ (1 Parsons Con. (7 Ed.) 439.) It is not every disputed claim however, which will support a compromise, but it must be a claim honestly and in good faith asserted, concerning which the parties may bona fide, and upon reasonable grounds, disagree. The compromise of such a claim in good faith, is a good consideration to pay money in settlement thereof, and when an action is brought upon such promise, it is no defense to say that the claim was not in fact a valid one, or that the parties were mistaken either as to the law or the facts. (Stewart v. Ahrenfeldt, 4 Denio, 189 ; Crand v. Hunter, 28 N. Y. 389 ; White v. Hoyt, 73 N. Y. 505 ; Griswold v. Wright, 61 Wis. 195 ( 21 N. W. 44 ); Brooks v. Holt, 36 Kan. 697 ( 14 Pac. 236 ); Flanagan v. Kilcome, 58 N. H. 443; Wehrum v. Kuhn, 61 N. Y. 623 .) “Nor is it a defense, that the claim could not have been maintained if suit or action had been brought u”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. John Wilson Estate Co. v. Dammeier Inv. Co.

2. ““That there was an actual bona fide dispute between these parties as to the amount of plaintiff’s damages, which each in good faith believed to be doubtful, and that the settlement was intended in good faith, as a compromise of such dispute, is not open to question on this record. But it is now insisted that the dispute was about a matter, not in fact doubtful, although the parties so considered it, and therefore the agreement of compromise is without consideration. The law favors voluntary settlements of controversies between the parties, which are characterized by good faith and a full disclosure of all the facts. (Wells v. Neff, 14 Or. 66 .) And such settlements will be upheld and enforced, although the disposition made by the parties in their agreement may not be what the court, would have adjudged, had the controversy been brought before it for decision; nor need the dispute to have been about a claim or matter actually doubtful. If the parties bona fide, and on reasonable grounds, believed it to be doubtful, it is a sufficient consideration to support the compromise.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hodges Agency, Inc. v. Rees

3. ““The settlement of a controversy is valid and binding, not because it is the settlement of a valid claim, but because it is the settlement of a controversy, and when such settlement is characterized by good faith the court will not look into the question ,of law or fact in dispute between the parties, and determine which is right. All that it needs to know is that there was a controversy between the parties, each claiming in good faith rights in himself against the other and that such. controversy has .been settled.” Smith v. Farra, 21 Or. 395 , 20 L. R. A. 115, 28 Pac. 241 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Phillips v. Musgrave