Brooks v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'[i]t has often been held that a contemporaneous written contract, entered into between the original parties to a note, and connected with the note by direct reference or by necessary implication, may affect the payee's right to recover against the maker, and that the two instruments should be considered together as the entire contract.' " Id. at 300 (quoting Local Acceptance Co. v. Kinkade, 361 S.W.2d 830, 833 (Mo.1962) (banc)). Considering the contract and note together, the court concluded it was not the parties' intent to allow plaintiff to "receive the full amount to be paid for the property and also the property.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Holiday Intervals, Inc.

2. “that plaintiff elected the option to declare a forfeiture and take possession of the premises ... thus eliminating her right to sue on the promissory note.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Holiday Intervals, Inc.

3. “the [promissory] note and contract were executed concurrently and as a part of the same transaction ... they must be considered together.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Holiday Intervals, Inc.