Brown v. Fraley’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 93 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Jones v. State (2004), Robinson v. Board of County Commissioners (1971)
3 federal appellate · 93 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 Slice v. Carozza Properties, Inc. · Ray v. Eurice · Comptroller of Treasury v. Aerial Products, Inc. · Mark v. Stuart-Howland Co. · 94 Mo. App. 76 - Springfield Seed Co. v. Walt
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he Rules are established to promote the orderly and efficient administration of justice and are to be read and followed.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The Chancellor found that the contract of sale was divisible and therefore held that the breach of the clause prohibiting competition by Fraley would not excuse Brown from making the payments required by the contract. As Williston points out (3 Williston, Contracts § 872 (Rev. Ed.)), a contract for the sale of chattels at a fixed price may also contain other promises for which no price is fixed. He gives as an example (at p. 2452) 'a contract for the purchase of goods [in which] there may be a promise for an agency or an exclusive market or for freedom from competition’ and says of such a contract: 'Breach of such a promise will not excuse the buyer from paying the contract price for property which he has received, nor will breach of a promise to assist in the resale of the goods sold. * * * It may be urged that frequently the defendant would not have agreed to pay this price except on the assumption that the other promises in the contract were to be kept. This is true and because it is true the injured party should be allowed to refuse to go on with the bargain if it is still wholly executory and should be allowed to rescind it even though executed, if he can restore to the other party the performance which has been received. * * * But so long as the defendant has received and retains the performance for which he promised to pay a fixed sum, it is going in the teeth of the express terms of the contract to excuse him from liability. Under such circumstances he must seek redr”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.