Carleton Ford, Inc. v. Oste’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
9
cited by 9 later decisions
3
states following
March 1987
most recently cited
7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Warner v. Hadfield
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under § 3-403 (2) (b), the defendant, even if an agent as he claims, ‘is personally obligated if the instrument (although it) names the person represented [Oste Bros.]— . . . does not show that the . . . [defendant] signed in a representative capacity.’ While under that section it may be ‘otherwise established between the immediate parties,’ § 3-307 (2) provides: ‘When signatures are admitted or established [as in this case]; production of the instrument entitles a holder to recover on it unless the defendant establishes a defense.’”
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.