Large v. Gregory’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 16 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Courts are divided over the proper standard for assessing damages in cases of total breach by the seller of his agreement to convey real property. In jurisdictions following the "American" rule, the buyer is entitled to recover ordinary contract damages, measured by the difference between the contract price and the market value of the land, together with any part payments of the price. See generally 5 A. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts § 1098 (1964); C. McCormick, Handbook on the Law of Damages § 177 (1935). Jurisdictions accepting the "English" rule generally limit the buyer's recovery to his down payment plus interest and reasonable expenses incurred in investigating the title; only if the seller has acted in bad faith or has assumed the risk of a failure to secure title will he be liable for ordinary contract damages. McCormick, supra, §§ 178-79. See also Corbin, supra, § 1098.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 5 Haw. App. 581 - Burgess v. Arita · 492 So. 2d 816 - Shakeshober v. Florida Resort Dev. Corp.

2. ““In reviewing the trial court’s ruling on a motion for judgment on the evidence, this court must consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the non-moving party. Killebrew v. Johnson (1980), Ind.App., 404 N.E.2d 1194 ; Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Chapman (1979), Ind.App., 388 N.E.2d 541 . Judgment on the evidence in favor of the defendant is proper when there is an absence of evidence or reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff upon an issue in question. The evidence must support without conflict only one inference which is in favor of the defendant. Palace Bar, Inc. v. Fearnot (1978) [269] Ind. [405] 381 N.E.2d 858 ; Arnold v. Parry (1977) [173] Ind.App. [300] 363 N.E.2d 1055 . If there is any probative evidence or reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence, or if there is evidence allowing reasonable people to differ as to the result, judgment on the evidence is improper. Keck v. Kerbs (1979), Ind.App., 395 N.E.2d 845 ; Arnold, supra.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Weinstock v. Ott