Linebarger v. Devine’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 18 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Whether a contract is entire, or separable into distinct and independent contracts, is a question of the intention of the parties, to be ascertained from the language employed and the subject-matter of the contract. Hutchens v. Sutherland, 22 Nev. 363 , 40 Pac. 409 ; State v. Jones, 21 Nev. 510 , 34 Pac. 450 . Whether, then, a contract is divisible, is a question of law, dependent upon the terms of the contract; but what are the terms thereof is a question of fact. If the several stipulations in the transaction are so interdependent that the parties cannot reasonably be considered to have contracted but with a view to the performance of the whole, or that a distinct engagement as to any one stipulation cannot be fairly and reasonably extracted from the transaction, no recovery can be had upon it, however clear of the statute of frauds it may be, or whatever be the form of action employed. The engagement in such case is said to be entire and indivisible. ’ ’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Leeker v. Marcotte

2. “when a contract is invalid or for any reason unenforceable, it necessarily follows that no right of action exists for damages occasioned by the breach thereof”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Insurance Co. of the West v. Gibson Tile Co.