Emerson v. Slater’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

45 federal appellate · 4 district · 68 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 140 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Whenever Hie main purpose and object of the promisor is not to.answer ior another, hut to subserve some pecuniary or business punióse of his own, involving either a benefit to himself or damage to the other contracting party, his promise is not within the statute, although it may he in form a promise to pay the debt of another, and although the performance of it may incidentally have the effect of extinguishing that liability.'’”

   17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Davis v. Patrick · Jefferson-Travis, Inc. v. Giant Eagle Markets, Inc.

2. ““Where the promise to pay the'debt of another is not the chief purpose of the transaction in which it inheres, and a substantial and valuable consideration therefor inures directly to the benefit of the promisor, as in a case in which he obtains a conveyance of property in consideration of his promise to pay the debt of the grantor, or to pay an incumbrance upon the property, the promise does not fall within the statute, and no writing is necessary to support it. In cases of this character, the fact that the object of the prom-isors is not to answer for the debts, defaults, or miscarriages of others, but is to obtain substantial benefits or advantages to themselves, wttiich they ac tually secure as tlie consideration for their agreements, distinguishes these promises from those within the statute, and makes them original agreements of the promisors, which are valid without writings.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kelsey v. Munson

3. ““It is held that the parties to an agreement, though it is in writing, may, at any time before the breach of it, by a new contract not in writing, modify, waive, dissolve, or annul the former agreement, if no part of it was within the statute of frauds.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Frankfurt-Barnett Co. v. William Prym Co.