142 Md. App. 259 - Mogavero v. Silverstein’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
16 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably 155 Md. App. 415 - Alternatives Unlimited, Inc. v. New Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners (2004), 168 Md. App. 298 - Maslow v. Vanguri (2006)
16 district · 25 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 County Commissioners v. J. Roland Dashiell & Sons, Inc. · Pavel Enterprises, Inc. v. AS Johnson Co., Inc. · 57 Md. App. 766 - Mass Transit Administration v. Granite Construction Co. · Jones v. Mid-Atlantic Funding Co. · Murdock-Bryant Construction, Inc. v. Pearson
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The term implied or inferred contract, also sometimes called an implied in fact contract, refers to that class of obligations which arises from mutual agreement and intent to promise, when the agreement and promise have simply not been expressed in words. Despite the fact that no words of promise or agreement have been used, such transactions are nevertheless true contracts, and may properly be called inferred contracts or contracts implied in fact.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“'The term implied in fact contract only means that the parties had a contract that can be seen in their conduct rather than in an explicit set of words.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“... The parties must express themselves in such terms that it can be ascertained to a reasonable degree of certainty what they mean. If the agreement be so vague and indefinite that it is not possible to collect from it the intention of the parties, it is void because neither the court nor jury could make a contract for the parties. Such a contract cannot be enforced in equity nor sued upon in law. For a contract to be legally enforceable, its language must not only be sufficiently definite to clearly inform the parties to it of what they may be called upon by its terms to do, but also must be sufficiently clear and definite in order that the courts, which may be required to enforce it, may be able to know the purpose and intention of the parties.”
2 later decisions 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.