Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 62 KAN 43 - Roberts v. Yaw

Roberts v. Yaw’s Empirical Analysis

1900

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
3
states following
April 1972
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently April 1972

14 state decisions

7019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 Benedict v. Lynch · Barnard v. Lee · Ketchum & Sweet v. Evertson · King v. Ruckman · Hatch v. Cobb

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

  1. ““Although there is no stipulation of the parties that time shall be of the essence of the contract, nor anything in the nature, or circumstances of the agreement to make it so, yet it may be made essential by the proper action of a party who is not in default and is ready to perform, if the other party is in default without justification. Thus, if the vendee, without sufficient excuse, fail to pay at the stipulated time, and the vendor is in no default, and is able and ready to perform all that the contract then requires of him, he may notify the vendee to pay within a reasonable time, or he [the vendor] will consider and treat the contract as rescinded. In such case, if payment be not made within a reasonable time, the vendor has a right, to treat the contract as abandoned by the vendee. In like manner, and with like consequences, the vendee may notify the vendor, if the latter is in default and the former is not. Rummington v. Kelley, 7 Ohio (pt. 2) 97; Higby v. Whittaker, 8 Ohio, 201.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Tucker v. Thraves

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.