Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 261 S.W.2d 526 - Meisel v. Mueller

Meisel v. Mueller’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
states following
April 1994
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently April 1994

14 state decisions

6019531960197019801990decided

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 Hamilton v. Linn · Menke v. Rovin · Metcalf v. American Surety Co. of New York · Kusnetsky v. Security Insurance · O'Donnell v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

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

  1. “It is the general rule, applicable to all contracts with the possible exception of insurance contracts, that a party seeking the avoidance of his contract ab initio, either at law or in equity, must tender the return of what he has received under it, even though the avoidance is sought on the ground of fraud. The rule is not founded on any solicitude for the fraud-feasor, but on the iniquity of allowing a party to repudiate his contract while holding onto the benefits received under it. (emphasis added).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “It is undoubtedly the law that a prior adjudication, in order to bar a subsequent action, must involve the same claim, demand, and cause of action, 30 Am.Jur., § 172, p. 914, but it is also the universal rule, that the prior adjudication, applies not only to points and issues that were raised by the pleadings and the parties, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of the litigation, and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward.”
    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.