Koontz v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 8 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Where an agreement is clear and capable of legal construction, the court’s only function is to interpret its lawful meaning, discover the intention of the parties as found within the agreement, and give effect to it.” The court must enforce an unambiguous contract according to its terms regardless of its ... apparent unreasonableness, or the parties’ failure to guard their rights carefully. It has long been held that to ascertain the intention of an instrument, the court must first look to its language, and if it is perfectly plain and capable of legal construction, then that language alone determines the instrument’s force and effect.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 236 F. Supp. 2d 536 - Volvo Trademark Holding Aktiebolaget v. CLM EQUIP. COMPANY, INC.

2. “The general rule is that [torts based on misrepresentation] must relate to a present or pre-existing fact, and cannot ordinarily be predicated on unfulfilled promises or statements as to future events.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tom Hughes Marine Incorporated v. American Honda Motor Company Incorporated

3. “parol evidence is admissible to ascertain the true meaning and intent of the parties.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 278 F. Supp. 2d 720 - Osborn v. UNIVERSITY MED. ASSOC., MED. UNIV. OF SC