Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 38 ARKAPP 215 - Rose Developments, Inc. v. Pearson Properties, Inc.

Rose Developments, Inc. v. Pearson Properties, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
December 1992
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Intraworld Industries, Inc. v. Girard Trust Bank · Sztejn v. J. Henry Schroder Banking Corp. · Shaffer v. Brooklyn Park Garden Apartments · Roman Ceramics Corp. v. Peoples National Bank · 517 F. Supp. 526 - Roman Ceramics Corp. v. Peoples National Bank

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

  1. “In the surety contract situation, there is no duty to indemnify the beneficiary until the beneficiary establishes the fact of the obligor’s nonperformance. The beneficiary may have to establish that fact in litigation. During the litigation, the surety holds the money and the beneficiary bears most of the cost of delay in performance. In the standby credit case, however, the beneficiary avoids that litigation burden and receives his money promptly upon presentation of the required documents. It may be that the account party has in'fact performed and that the beneficiary’s presentation of those documents is not rightful. In that case, the account party may sue the beneficiary in tort, in contract, or in breach of warranty; but during the litigation to determine whether the account party has in fact breached his obligation to perform, the beneficiary, not the account party, holds the money.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In place of a performance bond from a true surety, . . . (customer) gets his bank (issuer) to write . . . (beneficiary) a standby letter of credit. In this letter, issuer engages to pay beneficiary-owner against presentment of two documents: 1) a written demand (typically a sight draft) which calls for payment of the letter’s stipulated amount, plus 2) a written statement certifying that customer-builder has failed to perform the agreed construction work.”
    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.