Lazorcak v. Feuerstein’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 10 district · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably 57 Md. App. 190 - Finch v. Hughes Aircraft Co. (1984), 44 Md. App. 335 - Suburban Trust Co. v. Waller (1979)
2 federal appellate · 10 district · 38 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 Funger v. Mayor of Somerset · Mayor of Baltimore v. DeLuca-Davis Construction Co. · Charles County Broadcasting Co. v. Meares · Glen Alden Corp. v. Duvall · Gaver v. Gaver
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This effort to resume the status quo is required as, if a party who knows the facts which would justify rescission, does any act which recognizes the continued validity of the contract or indicates that he still feels bound under it, he will be held to have waived his right to rescind.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“All the authorities hold that such choice must be exercised as soon as the party ascertains the facts, and is informed of the failure on the part of the other party. The reason for this is clear. Having then a knowledge of the facts, he is not deceived. If he is unwilling to take the benefits accrued or accruing under the contract, he has an opportunity to disavow it, get back what he has put out, and place himself in approximately the same position in which he would have been had no contract been made. If he does not do this, but continues receiving the benefits coming to him under the contract, he has. affirmed the contract after knowing the facts. He may have been deceived in the first instance, but he is not deceived after he knows. Making his choice after he knows, he must abide by it. [Citations omitted].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When a contracting party is displeased with the other’s performance he may follow either of two alternative courses of action ...: (1) he can reaffirm the existence of the contract and seek specific performance when appropriate or claim damages for its breach, or (2) he can repudiate the contract altogether and request rescission.”
2 later decisions 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.