Walker v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 30 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““§ 500'. Contracts not intended to be performed within a year. “Another fine but important distinction is between: “1. A contract which can be performed, as the parties intend that it shall be performed, within a year, though they fully expect that performance will take a longer period and “2. A contract which cannot be performed within a year, as the parties intend and expect that it shall be performed, though performance in a different way within that time is conceivably possible and if so made would satisfy the literal words of the contract. “Contracts of the first sort are not within the Statute; those of the second sort are held at least by many courts to be within the Statute. The opinion of the parties as to the time which a given performance will take is immaterial, but their mutual in- . tentions as to the method of performance is important, and if that method cannot possibly be carried out within a year, the fact that another method which would satisfy the legal obligation is logically conceivable will not save the contract. * * * * # ft * “But in some of the cases hereafter referred to, it seems that performance of the contracts in question if completed within a year, could not have been objected to; and the contracts were nevertheless held within the Statute because performance in the way intended and expected, though not specially contracted for, could not be made within a year. ‘Of course, it was. possible the contract here could have been performed within a yea”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Markowitz Bros. v. John A. Volpe Construction Co.

2. ““In order to bring a contract within the infra annum clause, it must appear affirmatively that it is not to be performed within the year. And it has been said that the purpose of the statute is to provide only for a case in which there cannot be an actionable breach within the specified time. So it is the generally accepted rule that to bring a contract within its operation there must be an express and specified agreement not to be performed within the space of a year; if the thing may be performed within the year, it is not, within the statute, a restricted construction being given to the statute on account of the negative form of the provision. A contract is not brought within the statute by the fact that the full performance within a year is highly improbable, nor by the fact that the parties may not have expected that the contract would be performed within the year. This is said to be true if there is a possibility of its being performed within a year, and there is no stipulation that it shall not be so performed. If an agreement is capable of being performed within a year it is not within the statute, although it be not actually .performed till after that period, and after the expiration of the year it still remains binding.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Municipal Gas Co. v. Gilkerson

3. ““To make a parol contract void within the statute of frauds, it must appear affirmatively that it was not to be performed within a year.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Municipal Gas Co. v. Gilkerson