Strong v. Ringle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is true that the terms of an express contract cannot be contradicted by proof of an antagonistic custom. It is likewise true, however, that custom may make a contract in the sense that it may define the rights and duties of the parties with respect to a matter upon which the contract is silent. The rule is well stated by the supreme court of the United States in the case of Robinson v. United States, 80 U. S. 363 : ‘Parties who contract on a subject-matter concerning which known usages prevail, by implication incorporate them into their agreements, if nothing is said to the contrary.’ (p. 366.)” (p. 575.) “In the case of McSherry v. Blanchfield, supra, and in the case of Atkinson v. Kirkpatrick, 90 Kan. 515 , 135 Pac. 579 , the proper office of usage and custom was touched upon far enough for the purpose of those decisions, and a few pertinent authorities were cited. The subject was by no means exhausted. The general function of usage and custom is definition, explanation, elucidation. Whenever the matter is clear there is no function to be performed. Usually proof of custom is offered to elucidate- the true intention of parties to contracts whose oral or written expressions, whatever they may have been, are known. The custom under consideration is informed by essentially the same spirit and fulfills essentially the same office. By entering into the relations of contracting parties at their very inception it clarifies them before complications arise and establishes intent”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bellport v. Harrison · Peoples Ice & Fuel Co. v. Dickey Oil Co.

2. ““In order to avoid the consequences of misunderstandings, defects of memory, in some instances hypertrophy of memory, and in other instances equivocation or downright untruthfulness, those engaged in the grain business have adopted a method of rendering the result of their oral negotiations definite and certain. After oral negotiations have been concluded one of the parties immediately states the result in writing and submits the writing to the other for approval. It is the duty of the recipient of the writing to communicate his objections to the other party, if he have any, and to decline performance if unwilling to be bound by it.” (p. 575.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wallingford v. Bushton Grain & Supply Co.