Wampler v. Wampler’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 46 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““All obligations contracted on suspen-sive conditions are not escrow agreements, but all escrow agreements are obligations contracted on suspensive conditions so that, as applied here, the terms are interchangeable. An escrow is defined in 30 C.J.S. Escrows § 1, as a deed or other instrument deposited with a third person to be held for delivery to the grantee on the performance of a condition or the happening of a certain event. Escrows are fully recognized in Louisiana (see Bremer v. Lane, 185 La. 543 , 169 So. 568 ; Primus v. Feazel, 189 La. 932 , 181 So. 449 ; Clark v. Bush, La.App., 184 So. 588 and Kilpatrick v. Bearden, La.App., 37 So.2d 618 ), and such agreements, if oral, may be proven by parol evidence. Viso v. Gullo, 179 La. 8 , 153 So. 3 and Robinson v. Marks, 211 La. 452 , 30 So.2d 200 . “This is exactly the nature of the agreement in the instant case. It is shown that the assignment in question was left with Mr. David who was given verbal instructions to held it until the lease which it assigned had been fully executed and until the titles of all lessors had been examined and approved by him. These conditions suspended the obligation of the assignment, which was not binding or enforceable against either party until the conditions were fulfilled, it being well settled that an instrument in escrow does not become operative until performance of the conditions or the happening of the contingency agreed upon. 30 C.J.S. Escrows § 10 (a) and 19 Am.Jur. ‘Escrows’, Section”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Lewis · Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Lewis

2. “[A] conditional contract is retrospective in its operation as a binding executory contract as of the date it was made and, when the conditions on which the contract is dependent are fulfilled, either party thereto has the right to demand its performance. There is nothing in the language of the Article which lends support to the contention that, when the suspensive conditions are performed, title to the property contracted for vests retrospectively in the grantee to the date the engagement was contracted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Syracuse v. Orion Refining Corp. (In Re Orion Refining Corp.)

3. ““The rule against the admission of parol evidence to vary or contradict a written contract does not apply where the writing as to which it is sought to introduce the evidence is collateral to the issue involved and the action is not based on such writing.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hayes v. Muller