Brown v. Hahn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

65 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “From and after April 10,1772, all leases, estates, interests of freehold or term of years, or any uncertain interest of, in, or out of any messuages, manors, lands, tenements or hereditaments, made or created by livery and seisin only, or by parol, and not put in writing, and signed by the parties so making or creating the same, or their agents, thereunto lawfully authorized by writing, shall have the force and effect of leases or estates at will only, and shall not, either in law or equity, be deemed or taken to have any other or greater force or effect, any consideration for making any such parol leases or estates, or any former law or usage to the contrary notwithstanding; except, nevertheless, all leases not exceeding the term of three years from the making thereof; and moreover, that no leases, estates or interests, either of freehold or terms of years, or any uncertain interest, of, in, to or out of any messuages, manors, lands, tenements or hereditaments, shall, at any time after the said April 10, 1772, be assigned, granted or surrendered, unless it be by deed or note, in writing, signed by the party so assigning, granting or surrendering the same, or their agents, thereto lawfully authorized by writing, or by act and operation of law.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 400 Walnut Associates, L.P. v. 4th Walnut Associates L.P. (In re 400 Walnut Associates, L.P.) · 400 Walnut Associates, L.P. v. 4th Walnut Associates, L.P. (In Re 400 Walnut Associates, L.P.)

2. ““The cloud of confusion which for many years had enveloped the subject of when the defense of the Statute of Frauds was waivable and when not was lifted in Brown v. Hahn, 419 Pa. 42, 49 , 213 A.2d 342 (1965) wherein Mr. Justice (now Chief Justice) Jones, speaking for the Court, concisely summarized the distinction between the two: ‘Bearing in mind that the provisions of the several Statutes of Frauds differ in that language and that provisions of some Statutes of Frauds make unenforceable or void oral agreements in violation thereof while provisions of other Statutes of Frauds constitute declarations of public policy, the appropriate rule is that, if the particular statute operates to bar or destroy the plaintiff’s right of action, i. e., is a limitation on the power of the judiciary to afford a remedy, such statute constitutes a ground for demurrer and may be raised by prehminary objections: on the other hand, if the statute merely gives the defendant a waivable defense, such defense must be raised under Rule 1030 (New Matter) and not under Rule 1017(b) (Preliminary Objections).’ “When previously confronted with the statute covering promises to answer for the debt or default of another, this Court held that the language in the Act of 1855 (see footnote 1) that ‘no action shall be brought’ indicated a nonwaivable provision of the Statute of Frauds. Leonard v. Martling, 378 Pa. 339 , 106 A.2d 585 (1954.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Myers Lumber Co. v. First Federal S. & L. Ass'n

3. “... if the particular Statute of Frauds operates to bar or destroy the plaintiff’s right of action, irrespective of the action of the defendant, such statute may be raised by preliminary objections under Rule 1017(b); however, if the particular Statute of Frauds merely gives the defendant a waivable defense, the plaintiff will have stated a cause of action to which the defendant may, if he chooses, defend on the ground of the statute and, under such circumstances, the statute must be asserted under "New Matter” under Rule_1030.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Peters Township Sanitary Authority v. American Home & Land Development Co.