Potter v. Oster’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently March 2011
10 state decisions
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 Maytag Company v. Alward · Nora Springs Cooperative Co. v. Brandau · Kilpatrick v. Smith · Binkholder v. Carpenter · Dee v. Collins
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Rescission is a restitutionary remedy which attempts to restore the parties to their positions at the time the contract was executed. The remedy calls for a return of the land to the seller, with the buyer given judgment for payments made under the contract plus the value of improvements, less reasonable rental value for the period during which the buyer was in possession. The remedy has long been available in Iowa to buyers under land contracts when the seller has no title to convey. Rescission is considered an extraordinary remedy, however, and is ordinarily not available to a litigant as a matter of right but only when, in the discretion of the court, it is necessary to obtain equity. Our cases have established three requirements that must be met before rescission will be granted. First, the injured party must not be in default. Second, the breach must be substantial and go to the heart of the contract. Third, remedies at law must be inadequate.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Kimm v. Kimm · Risse v. Thompson“Judicial remedies for breach of contract serve to protect one or more of the following interests of the promisee: (a) “Expectation interest” in having the benefit of the bargain, placing the prom-isee in as good a position as if the contract had been fully performed; (b) “Reliance interest” in reimbursement for the loss caused by reliance on the contract, placing the promisee in as good a position as if the contract had not been made; or (c) “Restitution interest” in having restored to the promisee the benefit conferred upon the party in breach.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“and return of the consideration paid including principal and interest, cost of improvements, closing expenses, and taxes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Anderson v. Doms
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.