Rust v. Conrad’s Empirical Analysis
1882
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently December 2007 · most notably JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget (2007), Philadelphia Ball Club, Ltd. v. Lajoie (1902)
4 federal appellate · 30 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Willard v. Tayloe · Express Company v. Railroad Company · Blanchard v. Detroit, Lansing & Lake Michigan Railroad · Mississippi and Missouri Railroad Company v. Cromwell · Smith v. Lawrence
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f the contract is unequal; if he has bought land at a price which is wholly inadequate; if he has obtained the assent of the other party to unreasonable provisions; if there are any indications of overreaching or unfairness on his part, the court will refuse to entertain his case, and turn him over to the usual remedies.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““But the court will also refuse to interfere in any case where, if it were to do so, one of the parties might nullify its action through the exercise of a discretion which the contract or the law invests him with. The refusal in such a case does not depend of necessity upon any illegality, inequality, or unfairness, but it is sufficiently based upon the impropriety of imposing on the judge the labor, and on the public the expense of an investigation of disputes when the circumstances are such as to preclude any judgment that may be rendered from being final. No court can with reason be called upon to do a vain thing.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““All contracts where the party has reserved to himself, or where the law gives him the authority to render nugatory any decree that ought to be rendered in their enforcement, rest upon the same principle. This was recognized in Marble Co. v. Ripley, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 339, 359; and more distinctly asserted and decided in Express Co. v. Railroad Co., 99 U. S. 191 . In this last case the very strong assertion is made that ‘a court of equity never interferes where the power of revocation exists.’ ””
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.