Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 24 McCanless 234 - Mascari v. Raines

Mascari v. Raines’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
3
states following
January 2018
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. v. Greer (1997), American City Bank of Tullahoma v. Western Auto Supply Co. (1981)

28 state decisions

80196719701980199020002010decided

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 Stevenson v. Ewing · 42 Tenn. App. 434 - McFadden v. Blair · Biggs v. Reliance Life Ins. · Arlington Hotel Co. v. Ewing · Perkins v. Watson

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

  1. ““In arriving at the effect of the statute, the courts will look to the language of the statute, its subject matter, the object and reach of the statute, the wrong or evil which it seeks to remedy or prevent, and the purpose sought to be accomplished in its enactment; and if from all these it is manifest that it was not intended to imply a prohibition or to render the prohibited act void, the courts will so hold and will construe the statute accordingly ...” (Emphasis supplied)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““When contracts are prohibited by statute, the prohibition is sometimes expressed, and at others implied. Whenever the law imposes a penalty for making a contract, it impliedly forbids parties from making such a contract; and when a contract is prohibited, whether expressly or by implication, it is illegal, and cannot be enforced. Of this there is no doubt.” Perkins v. Watson, Trustee, 61 Tenn. 173 (1872); Stevenson v. Ewing, 87 Tenn. 46 , 9 S.W. 230 (1888). In 11 Am.Jur.(2d), Bills and Notes, Section 255, Page 282, it is said: “Like other contracts, bills and notes fall under the condemnation of agreements which are founded upon an illegal consideration or grow out of an illegal transaction, that is, a transaction which violates a constitutional provision or statutory or common law, public policy, or good morals.””
    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.