Graves v. . White’s Empirical Analysis
1882
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently May 1970 · most notably Jakober v. E. M. Loew's Capitol Theatre, Inc. (1970), Helgar Corporation v. . Warner's Features (1918)
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 44 state decisions — followed in 14 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 Dubois v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. · Jackson ex dem. Shipley v. Moncrief · Pierce v. Tuttle · McEachron v. Randles · Clarkson v. Carter
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the plaintiff could have stood upon the contract and compelled performance or recovered damages for the breach, she was not bound to adopt that remedy, but had the right to bring ejectment to recover back her land. In so doing, and giving the preliminary notice to surrender possession, she, too, gave her assent to the abandonment of the contract, and the parties who made it having thus by mutual assent rescinded it. its vitality was gone, and it ceased to exist. Neil her party, thereafter, could invoke its terms or protection, as against the other; and the plaintiff was at liberty to maintain ejectment to recover the possession of the land to which she had a legal title.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““* * * the refusal of one party to perform his contract amounts on his part to an abandonment of it. The other party thereupon has a choice of remedies. He may stand upon his contract, refusing assent to his adversary’s attempt to rescind it, and sue for a breach, or in a proper case, for a specific performance, or he may assent to its abandonment, and so effect a dissolution of the contract by the mutual and concurring assent of both parties. In that event he is simply restored to his original position, and can neither sue for a breach or compel a specific performance, because the contract itself has been dissolved.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““We think the ruling of the General Term was right. It rests upon a foundation common to all contracts that two persons who are competent to make a contract are. competent to waive or abandon it, and, when both concur in such waiver or abandonment, their united assent dissolves the contract, and the rights of each under it are ended. This was long ago held as to contracts respecting personal property.””
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.