Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 27 SO2D 444 - Dewenter v. Mott

Dewenter v. Mott’s Empirical Analysis

1946

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
December 2009
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 2009

1 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

201946195019601970198019902000decided

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 Joffrion v. Gumbel · MacHeca v. Bernard · Goudeau v. Daigle · Cresson v. Earhart · Goudeau v. Daigle

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

  1. “The general rule is that he who seeks performance of a contract for the conveyance of land must show himself ready, desirous, prompt, and eager to perform the contract on his part. Therefore unreasonable delay in doing these acts which are to be done by him will justify and require a denial of relief. No rule respecting the length of .delay which will be fatal to relief can be laid down, for each case must depend on its peculiar circumstances. It is equally well settled that one who seeks specific performance of such a contract must institute his suit within a reasonable time, and before any material change affecting the interest of the parties has taken place. These doctrines are applicable to the case before us. It exhibits an excessive and unreasonable delay not only in giving notice of satisfaction with the title and intent to require a conveyance, but also in the application for relief. In the time which has been permitted to elapse a material increase in the value of the subject-matter of the contract has taken place. It would be an unwarrantable exercise of discretionary power to allow one holding a mere [right] to purchase to lie by for so long a time and speculate upon the fluctuating values of urban lots, and, after a substantial increase in their value, to enforce a conveyance in his favor at the original price now inadequate. [¿Delay in such cases may doubtless be explained, and, in some circumstances, excused, but neither explanation nor excuse can be discovered ”
    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.