Sanger v. Warren’s Empirical Analysis
1898
Citation profile
2 district · 61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1961 · most notably Adams v. Abbott (1952), Mitchell v. Hampel (1928)
2 district · 61 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.
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There is no doubt that, where such an agreement is made, it is competent to show that one or both of the contracting parties were agents for other persons, and acted as such agents in making the contract, so as to give the benefit of the contract on the one hand to, and charge with liability on the other, the unnamed principals; and this, whether the agreement be or be not required to be in writing by the statute of frauds; and this evidence in no way contradicts the written agreement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sims v. Callihan“The exceptions to the rule, however, are so numerous, broad, and well defined, and rest upon principles of such a fundamental character, that the careful student of the law is driven to the conclusion that they are more important than the rule itself, and that the statement of the rule in such broad language has produced much confusion of thought, and greatly embarrassed, and probably has often misled, the courts in their efforts to apply correct legal principles to particular cases.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sims v. Callihan“It has long been settled to be a general rule of law that if A. contracts with B. supposing him to be acting in his own behalf [italics ours], but afterwards discovers that he was acting for C., A. can thereupon elect to hold C. upon the contract. The rule is held applicable to written contracts, and, by a process of reasoning not entirely satisfactory, even to those required by statute to be in writing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sims v. Callihan
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.