Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 175 VA 489 - Soble v. Herman

Soble v. Herman’s Empirical Analysis

1940

Citation profile

90
cited by 90 later decisions
5
states following
September 2015
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 55 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably Mortarino v. Consultant Engineering Services, Inc. (1996), Yuzefovsky v. St. John's Wood Apartments (2001)

11 federal appellate · 55 state decisions

32019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Montgomery Bell v. James Morrison Anthony Butler and Jonathan Taylor · Moore v. Gregory · Craufurd's Adm'r v. Smith's Ex'or · Bickle v. Chrisman's Adm'x · Ingram v. Harris

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

  1. “cannot ordinarily be predicated on unfulfilled promises or statements of future events.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The views stated herein are believed to be sound, notwithstanding the contrary views ably expressed in the majority opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Tucker v. Owen, 94 F.2d 49 . However, the strength of that case, as an authority to be followed, is weakened by the strong dissenting opinion of Judge North-cott and the well-stated opinion of the dis- . trict judge, Robert N. Pollard, both of whose conclusions are in accord with those expressed here. '”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Promise not to plead the statute. — Whenever the failure to enforce a promise, written or unwritten, not to plead the statute of limitations would operate a fraud on the promisee, the promisor shall be estopped to plead the statute. In all other cases an unwritten promise not to plead the statute shall be void, and a written promise not to plead it shall have the effect of a promise to pay the debt or discharge the liability.”
    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.