Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 235 La. 623 - Zemurray v. Boe

Zemurray v. Boe’s Empirical Analysis

1958

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
1
states following
May 2002
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently May 2002 · most notably 817 So. 2d 69 - Campbell v. Melton (2002), General Guaranty Insurance v. Parkerson (1966)

2 federal appellate · 27 state decisions

120195819601970198019902000decided

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 Breaux v. Laird · Di Cristina v. Weiser · Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana v. Futral · City of New Orleans v. Texas P Ry Co · Harrell v. Stumberg

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

  1. ““The obligation contracted on a suspen-sive condition, is that which depends, either on a future and uncertain event, or on an event which has actually taken place, without its being yet known to the parties. “In the former case, the obligation can not be executed till after the event; in the latter, the obligation has its effect from the day on which it was contracted, but it can not be enforced until the event be known.” (Emphasis added.)”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Under the option agreement between the parties, the obligation of (vendor) here sought to be enforced — his alleged obligation to sell (Vendee) the land in question for the stated consideration — only came into existence if certain things were done, including that: (1) notice be given in writing to (Vendor) of the acceptance of the option by 5:00 P. M., May 9, 1954 * * * The occurrence of these conditions was necessary to initiate (Vendor’s) obligation to sell the land; they were conditions suspensive of the obligation of (Vendor) to sell the land upon (Ven-dee’s) acceptance by May 9, 1954. Rather than terminating any such obligation, (Vendee’s) failure to (comply with the option) prevented its coming into existence.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““Art. 2047. In all cases the dissolution of a contract may be demanded by suit or by exception; and when the resolutory condition is an event, not depending on the will of either party, the contract is dissolved of right; but, in other cases, it must be sued for, and the party in default may, according to circumstances, have a further time allowed for the performance of the condition.””
    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.