Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 147 NEB 658 - Arman v. Structiform Engineering Co.

Arman v. Structiform Engineering Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1946

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
1
states following
March 1999
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently March 1999 · most notably Kipf v. Bitner (1948), Ford v. Luria Steel & Trading Corp. (1951)

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 28 state decisions

140194619501960197019801990decided

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 Langdon v. Loup River Public Power District · Telluride Power Transmission Co. v. Crane Co. · Pulliam v. McCleneghan · Wahlgren v. Loup River Public Power District · Roddy v. Hill Packing Co.

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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) An oral agreement is not superseded or invalidated by a subsequent or contemporaneous integration, nor a written agreement by a subsequent integration relating to the same subject-matter, if the agreement is not inconsistent with the integrated contract, and (a) is made for separate consideration, or (b) is such an agreement as might naturally be made as a separate agreement by parties situated as were the parties to the written contract.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““What [the written contract] was intended to cover cannot be known till we know what there was to cover. The question being whether certain subjects of negotiation were intended to be covered, we must compare the writing and the negotiations before we can determine whether they were in fact covered. Thus the apparent paradox is committed of receiving proof of certain negotiations in order to determine whether to exclude them.... But the paradox is apparent only. The explanation is that these alleged negotiations are received only provisionally. Although in form the witnesses may be allowed to recite the facts, yet in truth the facts will be afterwards treated as immaterial and legally void, if the rule is held applicable.””
    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.