Witmer v. Bloom’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently July 2015
13 state decisions
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 The Glendale Corp. v. Crawford · Findlay v. State of Texas · Carozza v. Peacock Land Corp. · Brodsky v. Hull · Perlmutter v. Bacas
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A sale in gross, sometimes called a ‘contract of hazard,’ is where specific designated parcels of land are sold as a whole and there is no warranty, express or implied, as to quantity. 2 Words and Phrases, Third Series, page 446. In determining whether a sale is by the acre or in gross, as in other contracts, the intention of the parties is controlling and must be given effect. 27 R.C.L. 436; 39 Cyc. 1313, note 5. “Where the language of the contract is clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, that intention must be gathered from its four corners; but where it leaves the question in doubt, extrinsic evidence as to the surrounding circumstances and the situation of the parties is admissible to aid in its interpretation. Ibid. “The mere fact that the acreage is specified in the contract does not conclude the question, and where it is apparent that the specification of quantity was not intended by the parties to be of the essence of the contract, but merely descriptive of the property, the sale will be considered as in gross, notwithstanding the specification (39 Cyc. 1313, note), especially where the specification is qualified by the words ‘more or less.’ Tyson v. Hardesty, 29 Md. 305 ; Slothower v. Gordon, 23 Md. 9 ; Hall v. Mayhew, 15 Md. 551 ; Stull v. Hurtt, 9 Gill. 446; Hurt v. Stull, 3 Md. Ch. 24 .” 165 Md. at 408 , 169 A. at 205-06 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cavacos v. Sarwar
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.