Shaughnessy v. Eidsmo’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 60 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““* *- * Conflicts in evidence are not to be resolved on appeal, and the trial court’s findings will not be disturbed unless they are manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence. We find here ample evidence to sustain the findings. Seitz v. Sitze, 215 Minn. 452, 455 , 10 N. W. (2d) 426, 428 ; Johlfs v. Cattoor, 193 Minn. 553, 556 , 259 N. W. 57, 58 ; Bicanic v. J. C. Campbell Co. 220 Minn. 107, 113 , 19 N. W. (2d) 7, 10 ; 1 Dunnell, Dig. & Supp. § 411.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Burman v. Burman · Prince v. Sonnesyn

2. “Equitable relief has usually been denied where the court in its discretion has found the common law remedy to be adequate. Where, however, an interest in land is involved, we have an exception to this rule that is significant in illustrating the special status accorded to land as distinguished from other forms of property... “Damages for the breach of a contract for the sale and purchase of any interest in land is always considered inadequate, without regard to the size, value or location of the land or the possi bility of getting other land substantially equivalent. The crystallization of this rule is probably due historically to the peculiar respect and consideration which has been accorded to land in English law; its modern justification is that because there is no open market for land either for the seller or buyer, the number of instances where the buyer could get latid substantially as satisfactory or where the vendor could make a ready sale to another purchaser is so small as to be negligible.” In short, inadequacy of damages is presumed and proof thereof is not required.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Landmark Holding Co. v. WLW Real Estate, L.L.P. (In Re Landmark Holding Co.)

3. ““Courts of equity early adopted the doctrine that such acts as the taking of possession, making of improvements, and the like by the purchaser with consent of the vendor make the contract enforceable though there is no written memorandum. This doctrine has been rested upon two main reasons : (1) that the rule of the Statute of Frauds is an evidential rule and that any acts clearly and solely referable to the existence of the contract satisfy in equity the purpose of the Statute; (2) that equity should relieve against the operation of the Statute in cases where it would be unconscionable for the vendor to rely upon it in defense”.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Scurry v. Edwards