Bata v. Bata’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 state decisions

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

1. “"* * * Marie and Tom [plaintiffs] claim the shares as statutory heirs, or, in civil law, the `universal successors', of Thomas. Jan's [defendant] claim has varied. He first asserted an oral contract with Thomas, as to which the courts below have decided adversely to him, and we are of course bound by such findings. He then claims that by virtue of two documents — an alleged written contract dated May 10, 1931, and an alleged will dated May 19, 1931 — as well as the subsequent conduct of plaintiffs, he is now the owner of said shares." At page 673. "* * * and appellant concedes that the only real question here presented is whether or not there is evidence to sustain the unreversed Special Term findings, the findings made by the Appellate Division and the disposition based thereon." At page 673-674. "* * * The Appellate Division also found that there had been no actual sale, oral or written." At page 675. "* * * Both lower courts have found that neither the May 10th writing nor the will constituted a valid, enforcible contract under Czech law." At page 677. "Since the written contract of May 10, 1931, was held invalid by the courts below under the Czech law, the estate had no legal claim against Jan. And, although the holographic will was valid under Czech law, yet since it disposed of a non-existing asset only, Thomas Bata's estate devolved according to law to his widow and son by way of intestacy. It follows that, subject to the payment of debts and legacies, plaintiffs becam”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bata v. Hill · Bata v. Hill

2. “"The status of these securities, however, must be evaluated in their own setting". 306 N.Y. 96 , 115 N.E.2d 672, 677 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bata v. Bata · Bata v. Bata

3. “* * * Marie and Tom [plaintiffs] claim the shares as statutory heirs, or, in civil law, the `universal successors', of Thomas. Jan's [defendant] claim has varied. He first asserted an oral contract with Thomas, as to which the courts below have decided adversely to him, and we are of course bound by such findings. He then claims that by virtue of two documents — an alleged written contract dated May 10, 1931, and an alleged will dated May 19, 1931 — as well as the subsequent conduct of plaintiffs, he is now the owner of said shares.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bata v. Hill