In Re Weekley Homes, L.P.’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 117 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 142 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably In Re D. Wilson Const. Co. (2006), In Re Labatt Food Service, L.P. (2009)
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 117 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas))
Relationships
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. · First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan · John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston · Volt Information Sciences Inc v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University
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 142 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[claiming the authority of the Purchase Agreement, she directed how [the home-builder] should construct many of its features, repeatedly demanded extensive repairs to ‘our home,’ personally requested and received financial reimbursement for expenses ‘I incurred’ while those repairs were made, and conducted settlement negotiations with [the home-builder] (apparently never consummated) about moving the family to a new home.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hether a claim seeks a direct benefit from a contract containing an arbitration clause turns on the substance of the claim, not artful pleading.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“But we have long recognized in other contexts the defensive theory of promissory estoppel. When a promisor induces substantial action or forbearance by another, promissory estoppel prevents any denial of that promise if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement. Promissory estoppel does not create liability where none otherwise exists, but “prevents a party from insisting upon his strict legal rights when it would be unjust to allow him to enforce them.””
2 later decisions 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.