Rease v. Kittle’s Empirical Analysis
1904
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 3 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably 133 N.J. Eq. 408 - Martindell v. Fiduciary Counsel, Inc. (1943), Shaughnessy v. Eidsmo (1946)
1 federal appellate · 3 district · 31 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Boston Ice Co. v. Potter · Maughlin v. Perry · Guyer v. Warren · Clason v. Bailey · Ross v. Parks
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A peculiarity of these two contracts is that in no event could the optionor have any remedy against the optionee. He could not sue within the time limited for performance, for .all that time was accorded to the optionee in which to perform or not as he might elect. The contract provided that, upon the expiration of that time, it should be null and void, so that neither party could then have any remedy against the other. That is one of the peculiarities of the contract in this case. There was no time when Kittle could sue Howell. He could not sue within the five years nor after the expiration of that period. However, there is mutuality in the contract, for a consideration has been paid, although it is insignificant in amount,” and because of the payment of the dollar consideration, and it alone, conclusions are reached that, while the contract is enforceable “before payment or tender of the purchase money within the time stipulated, such contract does not vest in the person to whom the offer of sale Is made any title to the land, either lesa I or equitable, and his assignment of his rights under the contract passes no title to the assignee.””
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.