Choate v. TRW, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
14 F.3d 74 · 1994
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 17 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably Jackson v. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner (1996), Nguyen v. CNA Corp. (1995)
8 federal appellate · 17 district · 1 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Miller v. Sevamp, Inc. · Frito-Lay, Inc. v. Willoughby · District of Columbia v. White
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[In Minihan v. American Pharmaceutical Ass’n, 812 F.2d 726, 727 (D.C.Cir.1987) ] we described as “well-settled” the law that “in the absence of clearly expressed contrary intent,” the presumption of at will employment prevails “even though the parties speak in terms of ‘permanent’ employment” and that the legal assumption is that by using that term “the parties have in mind merely the ordinary business contract for a continuing employment, terminable at the will of either party.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A promise is an expression of intention that the promisor will conduct himself in a specified way or bring about a specified result in the future, communicated in such a manner to a promisee that he may justly expect performance and may reasonably rely thereon.” Choate v. TRW, Inc., 14 F.3d 74 , 304 U.S.App. D.C. 312 (D.C.Cir.1994) (quoting 1 Corbin On Contracts § 13 (1963)). Here, Waldinger did not allege that the Debtors expressed intent that they would”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re WorldCom, 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.