Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 42 MINN 538 - Scanlon v. Oliver

Scanlon v. Oliver’s Empirical Analysis

1890

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
3
states following
July 2002
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently July 2002

5 state decisions

20189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Cheney v. Cook · Washburn v. Fletcher · Eastwood v. Buel

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

  1. ““ * * * Counsel contends that the writing is a complete contract, because it provides a mode by which the location and description of the land is to be definitely determined, but the trouble is that the mode provided is the future agreement of the parties. All the cases cited in support of this contention are like those of Burgon v. Cabanne [ 42 Minn. 267 , 44 N.W. 118 ], and Brown v. Munger [ 42 Minn. 482 , 44 N.W. 519 ], where the writings provided definite means by which the land was to be ascertained and known, without any further agreement of the parties, as where one party had the exclusive right of selection. But the agreement was completed and closed. * * •* ””
    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.