Stuart v. Hayden’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If one -who is induced to make a trade or sale by fraud would rescind it, he must, immediately upon his discovery of the fraud, announce his intention so to do, and return all the consideration he has received, to the end that the parties may be put in statu quo before subsequent transactions have made such action impossible. Silence, delay, vacillation, acquiescence, or the retention and use of any of the fruits of the sale or trade that are capable of restoration for any considerable length of time after the discovery of the fraud, constitute a complete and irrevocable ratification of the transaction.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Burk v. Johnson · International Harvester Co. of America v. Oliver

2. ““A cross-bill is brought either to aid in the defense of the original suit or to obtain a complete determination of the controversies between the original complainant and the cross-complainant over the subject-matter of the original bill. If its purpose is different from this, it is not a cross-bill, although it may have a connection with the general subject of the original bill. It may not interpose new controversies between codefendants to the original bill, the decision of which is unnecessary to a complete determination of the controversies between the complainant and the defendants over the subject-matter of the original bill. If it does so, it becomes an original bill, and must be dismissed, because there cannot be two original bills in tho same case. Story, Eq. Pl. § 3890; Cross v. Do Valle, 1 Wall. 1 , 140 [ 17 L. Ed. 515 ]; Ayres v. Carver, 17 How. 591 [ 15 L. Ed. 170 ]; Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 807 , 809 [ 19 L. Ed. 587 ]; Stonemetz Printer’s Mach. Co. v. Brown Folding Mach. Co. [C. C.] 40 Fed. 851 ; Fidelity Trust & Safety Vault Co. v. Mobile St. Ry. Co. [C. C.] 53 Fed. 850 , 852; McMullen v. Ritchie [C. C.] 57 Fed. 104 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rickey Land & Cattle Co. v. Wood · Landon v. Public Utilities Commission

3. ““One who is induced to make a sale or trade by the deceit of his vendee has a choice of two remedies upon his discovery of the fraud: He may affirm the contract, and sue for Ids damages; or he may rescind it, and sue for the property he has sold. The former remedy counts upon and affirms the validity of the transaction; the latter repudiates the transaction, and counts upon its invalidity. The two remedies are utterly inconsistent, and the choice of one rejects the other, because a sale cannot be valid and void at the same time.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. First Nat. Bank v. Seldomridge