Kunick v. Trout’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 10 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “This court has held that to constitute an equitable estoppel there must exist a false representation or concealment of facts made with knowledge, actual or constructive, and the party to whom it was made must have been without knowledge or means of knowledge of the real facts. [Citing Loff.] Where the facts are known to both parties, as they were here, or where they have the means of ascertaining the truth, there is no estoppel. [Citing Loff.] See also Narveson v. Schmid, 77 N.D. 814 , 46 N.W.2d 288 ; First Church of Christ, Scientist v. Revell, 68 S.D. 377 , 2 N.W.2d 674 . Kunick v. Trout, (N.D.1957), 85 N.W.2d 438 at 448 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sittner v. Mistelski

2. ““ * * * are delivered in escrow in the true sense of that term so that they have passed into the possession of a stranger for delivery to the grantee upon the happening of some event or the performance of some condition and are beyond the control of the grantor, the contract is taken out of the statute of frauds at least as against the party or parties who executed said deeds.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Heinzeroth v. Bentz