Perrin v. Price’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently January 1972
10 state decisions
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 Herndon v. Gregory · Stanford v. Sager · Tate v. Clark · St. L., I. M. & S. Railway Co. v. Beidler · Schuman v. Hughes
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““No action shall be brought . . . to-charge any person upon any contract for the sale of lands . . .. unless the agreement, promise or contract upon which such action shall be brought, or some memorandum, or note thereof, shall be in writing, and signed by the party’ to be charged therewith, . . .””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““In the early case of St. Louis, I. M. & S. Railway Co. v. Beidler, 45 Ark. 17 , this court held: (Headnote 1.): ‘A memorandum of a transaction for the sale of land which does not show the terms and ccmhiions of the sale, the price to be paid and the time for payment is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Statute of Frauds.’ “This rule has many times been reaffirmed by this court. In the recent case of Schuman v. Hughes, 203 Ark. 395 , 156 S.W.2d 804, 805 , the following receipt or memorandum was relied upon by appellant as enforceable and not coming within the ban of the Statute of Frauds: ‘Property taxes. Feb. 16, 1940. Received from Charley Hughes-five-dollars on aeet., 1113 W. 9th St. $5.00. Balance, $245.00. W. M. Kaplan.’ This court in that case held that it failed to satisfy the requirements of the statute, denied specific peifformance, and said: ‘The receipt or memorandum, supra, may not be relied upon to enforce specific performance of the alleged contract to sell for the reason that it does not embrace the terms and conditions of the alleged sale, the time and method of payment, and, therefore, is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Statute of Frauds, § 6059 of Pope’s Digest, and is unenforceable,’ and in the same volume of our reports, in Tate v. Clark, 203 Ark. 231 , 156 S.W.2d 218 , where a receipt or memorandum in the following form was relied upon: ‘Little Rock, Arkansas, December 28th, 1940, I hereby accept from B. E. Tate Twenty-fi”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dooley v. West
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.