Durepo v. May’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Texas Co. v. Aycock (1950), Foard v. Snider (2001)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 43 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Rockland-Rockport Lime Co. v. . Leary · Sholovitz v. Noorigian · Adams v. Peabody Coal Co. · Preble v. Higgins · Ives v. Hazard Others
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The note or memorandum sufficient to prevent the operation of the statute upon a contract for the sale of land need not have the formal precision usually found in a written contract or agreement. Such note or memorandum meets the requirements of the statute if it sets out who are the seller and the buyer, their respective intention to sell and to purchase, such a description of the subject-matter of the sale as may be applied to a particular piece of land, the purchase price, and the terms of payment if the sale is not for cash; and further such note or memorandum must be signed by the party to be charged in the action or by his agent lawfully authorized.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[w]hat is a reasonable time depends upon the circumstances of each case”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The great weight of American authority is against applying the rule of the Lawes case in the same or similar circumstances. The decided trend of the decisions in this country is that the exercise of an option to purchase real property after the death of the owner does not relate back to the time of the option agreement so as to affect, under the doctrine of equitable conversion, the rights of the owner’s heirs or devisees.”
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.