Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 256 Ala. 565 - Rice v. Sinclair Refining Co.

Rice v. Sinclair Refining Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1952

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
3
states following
December 2008
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently December 2008

22 state decisions

80195219601970198019902000decided

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 Sinclair Refining Co. v. Allbritton · Van Antwerp v. Van Antwerp · Cowin v. Salmon · Zirkle v. Ball · Moorer v. Tensaw Land & Timber Co.

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

  1. ““Appellants take the position that the option to purchase was not exercised within the terms of the sixty days provisions contained therein. It is argued that the date or event which the notice is to precede must be and is lessee’s election to exercise the purchase option, otherwise the purchase option is ambiguous and of no effect. It is pointed out that the notice of February 8, 1951 did not give at least 60 days notice of lessee’s election to exercise the option, but by its terms ‘elects to and does hereby exercise the option.’ It is further pointed out that the lessee did not await the expiration of 60 days period for exercising the option, for without waiting 60 days from February 8, 1951, the lessee gave the notice of March 22, 1951, and then filed suit within 57 days from this last notice. “We are not impressed with this position. It is true that the phrase in the purchase option ‘not less than sixty (60) days notice of lessee’s election to exercise the purchase option’ is ambiguous when considered alone because it fails to state what date or .event the 60 days in question is to precede. But by the very terms of the contract the notice given on February 8, 1951, established the relationship of vendor and purchaser between the parties. * * ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “payment of rental under the contract is sufficient to support the option to purchase under the contact so that it cannot be withdrawn during the period specified for its continuance.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[w]hen an option is accepted there arises a binding contract to sell and convey founded on valuable consideration where rent is paid during the term.”
    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.