Bryant v. McMurrey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Findings of Fact “Plaintiff Loraine Bryant, formerly McMurrey, entered into an agreement in writing on October 30, 1942, with defendant Jim McMurrey in settlement of their community estate which agreement was made a part of the divorce decree entered on November 25, 1942. “I find that on August 26, 1946, the United States Collector of Internal Revenue of Dallas made a deficiency tax assessment against Mrs. McMurrey for the year 1940 in the sum of $1023.-36, for the year 1941 in the sum of $1419.77, and on July 18, 1947, the said’ collector made a deficiency tax assessment against her for $4795.23, all of which amounts so assessed as deficiency she paid, plus accrued interest in the total sum of $8545.68; that she made due demand upon the defendant that he pay the said deficiency taxes to the collector of Internal Revenue before she paid them, and that after payment she made due demand on defendant to reimburse her for such payment so made, including expenses and attorney’s fees. A federal tax lien was filed prior to the payment of said taxes. 'Tfind that the said contract in paragraph 6 contained the provision that: ‘It is further agreed that neither the plaintiff Loraine McMurrey nor the properties, real, personal, or mixed, which are to be conveyed or assigned to her by reason of this agreement, is liable for any debts, obligations, charges, liens, which are or may be outstanding against said parties or either of them or against the -properties to be assigned and/or conveye”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. McMurrey v. Bryant

2. ““The intent of the contracting parties as expressed is clear and unequivocal that neither Mrs. McMurrey nor the properties would be'-liable but that defendant Jim McMurrey agreed to assume not in part but wholly any debt, obligation, charge or lien against the properties then outstanding or that may be outstanding. The intent is clear from its express provisions that he agreed to pay same. Each stands upon the terms of the agreement. No ambiguity is involved. “The adjudicated demands of the Internal Revenue Department with the subsequent filing of a valid tax lien for taxes for the years involved, although not known to the parties when the agreement was reached, nevertheless would fall within the provisions of the agreement; namely, a debt, obligation, charge or lien ‘that may be outstanding.’ And certainly would come within the provision that plaintiff would not be liable but that he would. “In the construction of this written agreement, for the reasons above stated, and under the rule of construction stated in 10 T.J. (Contracts), Secs. 159, 164, we conclude and so hold as a matter of law that defendant is liable for the deficiency tax assessments here-inabove set out in the sum of $9,234.-27.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. McMurrey v. Bryant

3. ““ * * * We adhere to our former conclusions as to the construction of the contract. But upon a further examination of the record with respect to the deficiency assessment of $4,795.23 made in 1947, we are of the opinion that a question of fact is presented as to whether this deficiency assessment involved 1942 or 1943 or a part of same accrued for each year.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. McMurrey v. Bryant