Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 219 MICH 8 - Duncombe v. Tromble

Duncombe v. Tromble’s Empirical Analysis

1922

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
February 1942
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently February 1942

1 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

40192219301940decided

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

  1. ““Whether plaintiffs so notified defendant (of a rescission), or not, under the circumstances here disclosed, does not defeat the action. The bringing of the suit within a few days after the payment of the money operated as notice to defendant of the refusal of the plaintiffs to go ahead with the deal under the new terms imposed and as a demand for the return of the money paid. The bringing of suit by plaintiffs to recover the consideration money paid was sufficient evidence of rescission on the part of plaintiffs.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Aug. 13, 1920. “Received from C. Duncombe $10.00 as option on house on lot No. 95. (Sgd.) “Chas. Messmer.””
    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.