Kline v. Lightman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 6 district · 21 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is equally well settled in Maryland and by the great weight of authority generally that if the oral promise is to be made by the defendant to serve some purpose of his own rather than to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another person, such an oral promise is not within Section IV, Subsection (2) of the Statute of Frauds. Judge Delaplaine, for the Court, in Crown Realty Corporation v. Weinstein, 177 Md. 260 , 9 A. 2d 602 (1939) stated the ‘main purpose’ or ‘leading purpose’ rule as follows: “ ‘The question in this case is whether the alleged promise of the appellant was collateral, and therefore within the Statute of Frauds, or whether it was original and enforceable. It is frequently difficult to determine, merely from the words in which a promise has been made, whether the undertaking is collateral to an engagement of liability or an original undertaking. In deciding this question, the situation of the parties and all the surrounding circumstances should be considered. In other words, the test in determining whether an undertaking is collateral or original is whether the promise was in fact made and intended as collateral or as original. 27 C.J., Statute of Frauds, sec. 20; Brantly on Contracts, sec. 55. “ ‘It is well established that whenever the main purpose of the promisor is to subserve some pecuniary or business purpose of his own, his promise is not within the statute, although it may be in form a promise to pay the debt of another, and although the ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Blumenthal v. Heron

2. “[c]onduct sufficient to create an equitable estoppel can bar one from asserting the defense of the statute of frauds to an oral contract otherwise within its provisions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Learning Works, Inc. v. Learning Annex, Inc.

3. “a defendant from relying upon a right of property, of contract or of remedy both at law or in equity.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Biser v. Town of Bel Air