Klein v. Beers’s Empirical Analysis
1923
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 1964
5 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 Hutchinson v. Krueger · Southern Surety Co. v. Waits · Thompson v. Grider Implement Co. · Dolese Bros. Co. v. Chaney Rickard · Snider v. Greer-Wilkinson Lumber Co.
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In construing the terms of the bond, we must bear in mind that the sureties on this bond are individuals and the bond is to be construed according to the provisions of section 1052, Rev. Laws 1910, which is as follows : “ ‘A surety cannot be held beyond the express terms of his contract, and if such contract prescribes a penalty for its breach, he cannot in any case be liable for more than the penalty.’ “Section 1053, Rev. Laws 1910, provides: “ ‘In interpreting the terms of a contract of suretyship, the same rules are to be observed as in the case of other contracts.’ “In Dolese Bros. v. Chaney & Rickard, 44 Okla. 745 , 145 Pac. 1119 , we said: “ ‘After a contract of suretyship is iirerpreted and the intelligible meaning of'its language is ascertained, it will be construed and applied strictly in favor of the suier.y and without allowance of an implication against him.’ “But in applying this rule of strict construction, we must have in mind what is meant by the rule, and this is clearly staled in 21 R. C. L., sec. 28, as follows: “ ‘In brief, by strict construction of a contract of suretyship is meant that the obligation of a surety must not be extended to any other subject, to any other person, or to any other period of time than is expressed or necessarily included in it; but the rule in no way interferes with the use of the ordinary tests by which the actual meaning or intention of contracting parties are primarily determined. Despite the rule, the courts, in endeavoring”
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.