Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 265 F.2d 575 - Carl A. S. Coan, Jr. v. Victor J. Orsinger and Tyler Gardens Corporation

Carl A. S. Coan, Jr. v. Victor J. Orsinger and Tyler Gardens Corporation’s Empirical Analysis

265 F.2d 575 · 1959

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
September 2008
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 2008

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

60195919601970198019902000decided

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 Warner v. Texas P Ry Co · Packet Company v. Sickles · Jones v. La Vallette · Blue Valley Creamery Co. v. Consolidated Products Co. · Street v. Maddux, Marshall, Moss & Mallory, Inc.

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

  1. “If the contingency which fulfills and completes the terms of the contract happens or could possibly happen within a year, the contract is not within the statute.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “] 29 .... 30 "Much of the confusion in considering the applicability of the statute apparently arises from failing to keep in mind the distinction between a contingency of such a nature as fulfills the obligation and one that defeats or prevents it from being performed. The one that depends upon the defeasance or matter of avoidance is within the statute, while the other is not.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “* * * The statute [of frauds] looks to the performance and not the defeat of the contract, and a defeasance within a year would not constitute a performance according to the express intent of the parties, that performance should continue longer than a year.[”
    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.