Cash v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis
1895
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 1975
9 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 Townsend v. Hargraves · Drury v. Young · Jones v. Lloyd · Moore v. Mountcastle · Wildbahn v. Robidoux
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““That the contract itself is not void and need not be in writing, or have a memorandum or note thereof made and signed, in order to its validity, is further' evident from the holding of the courts that the note or memorandum need not be made contemporaneously with the contract. Such memorandum will be good if it come into existence at any time before suit brought. [Cunningham v. Williams, 43 Mo. App. 629 ; Perry on Trusts, sec. 82; 2 Wharton, Evid., sec. 872; 1 Reed, Stat. Frauds, sec. 325; Leather Co. v. Hieronomus, L. R. 10 Q. B. 140.] And after a breach had been committed. [Johnson v. Trinity Church, 11 Allen, 123 .] And it has been held that the memorandum will be good, even though it come into existence after suit is broug-ht (though this has been denied). “A letter, though addressed to a third party, is sufficient, if it contain the. requisite statement of the contract. [Cunningham v. Williams, 43 Mo. App. 629 .] And it would not alter its availability, if it should be written for the purpose of repudiating the contract. [Drury v. Young, 58 Md. 456 ; Bailey v. Sweeting, 9 C. B. (N. S.) 843; Buxton v. Rust, L. R. 7 Ex. 279; Wilkinson v. Evans, L. R. 1 C. P. 407.] Whether, if the repudiation was on account of the contract not being in writing, it should still be held not to prevent the use of the letter, is not considered. An answer or pleading in some other cause is sufficient. [Jones v. Lloyd, 117 Ill. 597 ; Gordon v. Green, 10 Ga. 534 .] So are the minutes of a town co”
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.