Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 227 Mo. App. 778 - The Nat. Refining Co. v. Cox

227 Mo. App. 778 - The Nat. Refining Co. v. Cox’s Empirical Analysis

1933

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
4
states following
October 2008
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently October 2008

4 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

6019331940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Wood v. . Duff-Gordon · Walker v. Tucker · Lewis v. Atlas Mutual Life Insurance · Nokol Company v. Becker · Carpenter v. City of St. Joseph

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

  1. ““ ‘It very frequently happens that contracts on their face and by their express terms appear to be obligatory on one party only; but in such cases, if it be manifest that it was the intention of the' parties, and the consideration upon which one party assumed an express obligation, that there should be a corresponding and correlative obligation on the other party, such corresponding and correlative obligation will be implied.’ ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The fact that plaintiff reserved the right to cancel the lease upon giving thirty days’ notice, while a like right is not given to the defendant, does not deprive it of its bilateral character. It is not necessary for mutuality that every covenant be mutual. 35 C.J. p. 1145; 13 C.J. p. 333. The rule is against construing a contract as unilateral and in favor of the construction that will make it valid, if such a construction can reasonably be made. 13 C.J. p. 333, B. 34.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““Defendant insists that owing to the fact that plaintiff drew the lease it should be construed in its most unfavorable light to it. But this rule of construction comes into play only where there is ambiguity in the writing and the fact that it is necessary to imply matters in a contract or lease in order to uphold its validity does not give rise to an ambiguity. Walker v. Tucker, supra [ 70 Ill. 527 ]. * * *»”
    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.