Michelson v. House’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

76 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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A motion for summary judgment is not to be considered as a substitute for a trial and should not be granted where there is a genuine issue of material fact. Rule 56(c), our rules, Sec. 19-101(56) N.M.Stats.1941 Compilation; McLain v. Haley, 53 N.M. 327 , 207 P.2d 1013 ; Agnew v. Libbey, 53 N.M. 56 , 201 P.2d 775 . Litigants are entitled to the right of trial where there is the slightest doubt as to the facts. Ramsouer v. Midland Valley Railroad Co., D.C., 44 F.Supp. 523 ; Whitaker v. Coleman, 5 Cir., 115 F.2d 305 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ginn v. MacAluso · Ballard v. Markey

2. ““ * * * It appears that appellant used various items of equipment and * * * he argues that he saved the owner additional expense. This contention is without merit. The contract is silent respecting reimbursements for personally owned equipment. In the absence of such stipulations, appellant was required to furnish the necessary equipment for the work at hand. The claim was a part of the overhead and clearly falls within the provision of Section six of the contract which expressly excludes reimbursement for overhead and general expenses. “In Lytle, Campbell & Co. v. Somers, Fitler & Todd Co., 276 Pa. 409 , 120 A. 409 , 27 A.L.R. 41 , the work was done 'on a time and material basis, with ten per cent, profit as compensation to the contractor, the records of the cost to be kept at all times in such a manner as to be checked and audited by the owners’. The contractor sought to recover as cost items of rent, heat, light, etc. and in rejecting the claim the court said: ‘The words (on a time and material basis with 10% profit as compensation to the contractor) will not be extended beyond their exact meaning, and indeed they should be given a restricted meaning. At least they should be considered in the sense in which they are popularly understood. One thus contracting engages to furnish and keep in condition the tools and necessary equipment to do the work.’ (Emphasis ours.) “ * * * in Shaw v. G. B. Beaumont Co., 88 N.J.Eq. 333, 102 A. 151, 153 , 2 A.L.R. 122 , the court * * * said:”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Pioneer Constructors v. Symes

3. “"In the consideration of a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, the evidence favorable to the successful parties together with the inferences that may reasonably be drawn therefrom are to be accepted as true. To grant the motion the court should be able to say that there is neither evidence nor inference from which the jury could have arrived at its verdict. The author at 30 Am.Jur., Judgments, Section 57, states the rule: `* * * In determining whether to render a judgment non obstante veredicto, the court is not justified in trespassing on the province of a jury to be the judges of all questions of fact in the case, and the party favored by the verdict is entitled to have the testimony read in the light most advantageous to him, and to be given the benefit of every inference of fact fairly deducible therefrom.'"”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Amaro v. Moss