138 Ga. App. 215 - Venable v. Block’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently November 2013 · most notably 138 Ga. App. 849 - Berman v. Rubin (1976), 144 Ga. App. 320 - Space Leasing Associates v. Atlantic Building Systems, Inc. (1977)
3 federal appellate · 26 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 Garrett v. Royal Brothers Co. · Florida Yellow Pine Co. v. Flint River Naval Stores Co. · Pepsi-Cola Co. v. Wright · 127 Ga. App. 709 - Malone Construction Co. v. Westbrook · Florida Central & Peninsular Railroad v. Usina
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We find the oral exchange of promises to be sufficient consideration. The fact that the promises were based on a contingency will not affect its validity as consideration. However, an alleged contract on which there is no firm agreement as to consideration is unenforceable. Although this is the general law on this issue, we find this contract to be enforceable where consideration is admitted and there is disagreement only as to whether there was common agreement as to the specific amount of consideration in a par-ol contract. Where there is a conflict in the evidence as to what the specific terms of an oral contract are, including that of consideration, this is a question for the jury — all other essentials of a valid oral agreement being present. We find all of the essentials of an oral contract to be present— with only the issue of whether there was agreement on the specific amount of consideration being in dispute. That is a proper issue for the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Harden v. TRW, Inc.
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.