Burgett v. Loeb’s Empirical Analysis
1909
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently February 1973 · most notably Raner v. Goldberg (1927), Greil Bros. v. Mabson (1912)
2 federal appellate · 35 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 Heller v. Dailey · Houston Ice & Brewing Co. v. Keenan · Bradley v. Harter · 39 Tex. Civ. App. 443 - San Antonio Brewing Assn. v. Brents · Rigsbee v. Bowler
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is the general rule that, where the performance of a contract becomes impossible subsequent to the making of the contract, the promisor is not thereby discharged. To this rule there is a well established exception, namely, where the performance becomes impossible by a change in the laws the promisor is discharged. The facts here presented do not bring the case at bar within the exception. The appellant did not discontinue his business because of a change in the law, but because of its application. At the time of entering into the contract, that he might subsequently, by the proper authorities, be denied a license, was a probability well known to him. (Houston Ice & Brewing Co. v. Keenan, 99 Tex. 79 , [ 88 S. W. 197 ] ; San Antonio Brewing Assoc. v. Brents, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 443 , [ 88 S. W. 368 ] ; White v. Stuart, 76 Va. 546 .) With this knowledge, appellant made his terms unconditionally. He took the risk of being held liable for the rents even though performance became impossible by reason of circumstances beyond his control.””
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.