Huffine v. McCampbell’s Empirical Analysis
1923
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently April 2012
2 federal appellate · 12 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.
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The statute of frauds is, after all, merely a statute declaring that a certain kind of evidence is required to support an action in certain cases. If the statute be not pleaded, a parol contract can be enforced. The distinction between the contract itself and the memorandum, which is merely the evidence thereof, is clearly shown in Lee v. Cherry, 85 Tenn. 707 , at page 708, 4 S. W. at page 835 , 4 Am. St. Rep. 800 , where the court'says: “ ‘It is not essential that the contract of sale shall be in writing, provided there is produced a writing containing the terms of the oral contract, and authenticated by the signature of the party to be charged. ’ ’ ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cobble v. Langford
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.