Griffith v. Scheungrab’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
8 district · 66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Canaras v. Lift Truck Services, Inc. (1974), Traylor v. Grafton (1975)
8 district · 66 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 Foster-Porter Enterprises, Inc. v. De Mare · Vanadium Corp. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland · Black v. Woodrow · Milske v. Steiner Mantel Co. · 13 Ill. 2d 126 - Horan v. Blowitz
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where a contractual duty is subject to a condition precedent, whether express or implied, there is no duty of performance and there can be no breach by nonperformance until the condition precedent is either performed or excused. An unexcused failure to perform makes it impossible for a breach to occur and, therefore, no remedy for enforcement is available to the delinquent one. 6 Corbin, Contracts, Secs. 1252, 1264, 1266; Kahn v. Janowski, 191 Md. 279, 286 ; Foster-Porter Enterprises, Inc. v. De Mare, 198 Md. 20, 36 ; Springer v. Korotki, 215 Md. 310 .” Id. 219 Md. at 34-35, 146 A. 2d at 868 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is a familiar principle often applied in the cases that * * the laws which subsist at the time and place of making a contract enter into and form a part of it, as if they were expressly referred to or incorporated in its terms; and this rule embraces alike those which affect its validity, construction, discharge and enforcement.’ Brown v. Smart, 69 Md. 320, 330 ; Globe Slicing Machine Co., Inc. v. Murphy, 161 Md. 667, 671 . It is not necessary to determine how far this broad statement would be applicable and controlling in various contexts and situations. See 3 Corbin, Contracts, Sec. 551.” Id. at 33, 146 A. 2d at 867 . 2”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is expressly agreed that notwithstanding any other provisions of this contract, the purchaser shall not be obligated to complete the purchase of the property described herein or to incur any penalty by forfeiture of earnest money deposit or otherwise unless the seller has delivered to the purchaser a written statement issued by the Federal Housing Commissioner setting forth the appraised value of the property for mortgage insurance purposes of not less than $12,000 in fee simple which statement the seller hereby agrees to deliver to the purchaser promptly after such appraised value etc. is made available to the seller. “The purchaser shall, however, have the privilege and option of proceeding with the consummation of this contract without regard to the amount of the appraised valuation made by the Federal Housing Commissioner.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hill v. Benevicz
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.