Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 138 N.J. Super. 551 - State v. Arnold Constable Corp.

138 N.J. Super. 551 - State v. Arnold Constable Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
5
states following
April 2010
most recently cited

1 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently April 2010

1 district · 6 state decisions

4019761980199020002010decided

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 Tool Company v. Norris · Reynolds v. Goodwin-Hill Corp. · 343 Ill. App. 420 - Buckley v. Coyne Electrical School, Inc. · Stone v. William Steinen Mfg. Co. · 18 Wash. 2d 625 - Hall v. Anderson

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.

  1. “Every contract or agreement negotiated, awarded or made pursuant to this act shall contain a suitable warranty by the contractor that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure such contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage or contingent fee, except bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the contractor for the purpose of securing business, for the breach or violation of which warranty the State shall have the right to annul such contract without liability or in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration the full amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage or contingent fee. [footnote omitted.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “is to be resolved by weighing all of the elements involved and then deciding whether the inherent tendency of the agreement is to invite or promote the use of corrupt means to accomplish the end or to bring influences to bear upon public officials which are improper. [M at 563.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.