94 Ohio App. 390 - Goodman v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 8 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘The contingency which here occurred was one which might well have been foreseen and provided against in the contract, but was not. The law will not insert by construction for the benefit of one of the parties an exception or condition which the parties either by design or neglect have omitted from their own contract.’” Id. at 391-393, 52 O.O. at 56-57 , 114 N.E.2d at 857-858 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 118 Ohio App. 3d 78 - Truetried Service Co. v. Hager · Westbury Coal Mining Partnership v. J. S. & K. Coal Corp.

2. ““From the briefs we learn that the Board of Liquor Control had refused to permit the defendant to operate a place for the sale of beer, wine and liquor at the rented premises because of the proximity thereto of a public school building. It also appears that the lease carried no exception or condition that if the liquor permit was not granted to the defendant it should not be binding upon him. It is not contended, nor does it appear, that the premises could not have been used as a restaurant for the sale of food. “The trial judge upon request of defendant made special findings of fact from which he drew his conclusions of law as follows: “ ‘The terms of the lease must prevail. Defendant knew the Board of Liquor Control would have to approve the transfer of his license before he could sell liquor upon the demised premises. He failed to provide for that contingency in his lease. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment for his rent.’ “This succinct of law is supported by the findings of fact which, in part, are that defendant planning to move his liquor business from North High Street, in the City of Columbus, to 304 East Main Street in said city, on August 11, 1950, executed a lease with plaintiff for a period of five years; that the rental was to be $150 per month and .the defendant was to use the rented premises for the sale of beer, wines, liquor and food; and that both parties knew, when the lease was signed that the use of the property for the sale of liquor was subject to an ord”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 118 Ohio App. 3d 78 - Truetried Service Co. v. Hager