Opsjon v. Evard Engebo’s Empirical Analysis
1913
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently November 1973
11 state decisions
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 Rucker v. Steelman · Whiting v. Doughton · Walker v. McMurchie · Douglas v. Hanbury · Colpe v. Lindblom
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The rule is well settled in this state that, after a vendor has waived the essence clause of a contract, the purchaser will not be in default until after a demand has been made upon him for a compliance with his contract and a reasonable time has elapsed in which to comply with the demand. Whiting v. Doughton, 31 Wash. 327 , 71 Pac. 1026 ; Douglas v. Hanbury, 56 Wash. 63 , 104 Pac. 1110 , 134 Am. St. 1096; Walker v. McMurchie, 61 Wash. 489 , 112 Pac. 500 . We have also held that the time in which to perform a written contract may be waived as well as extended by parol. Whiting v . Doughton, supra. “The appellant, having encouraged the prosecution of the suit to quiet title to the lot, and having acquiesced in the delay in tendering the deed and abstract of title, was not in a position to assert a breach of the contract upon the part of respondents in failing to convey the lot at the time agreed upon. Colpe v. Lindblom, 57 Wash. 106 , 106 Pac. 634 ; Hawes v. Swanzey, 123 Iowa 51 , 98 N. W. 586 ; Bales v. Williamson, 128 Iowa 127 , 103 N. W. 150 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Garrison v. Newton““It is contended that the description in the deed which the respondents tendered is indefinite. It suffices to say that it conveys the identical property which the respondents agreed to convey, and that a mathematical calculation will disclose that the description is definite and easily susceptible of identification. This is all the law requires. Rucker v. Steelman, 73 Ind. 396 ; Sengfelder v. Hill, 21 Wash. 371 , 58 Pac. 250 .””
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.