189 Or. App. 258 - Hughes v. Misar’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
December 2006
most recently cited
2 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n the absence of some communicated condition regarding the postponement of the binding effect of their mutual assent, such as a provision in the [document] or a statement by one of the parties, the objective meaning of the parties' action was that the agreed terms were binding immediately”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“When parties agree on the essential terms of a contract and there is nothing left for future negotiations, the fact that they also intended there to be a future writing that expresses their agreement more formally does not affect the immediately binding nature of the agreement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Our holding is consistent with the general rule of contract law that parties may intend a writing simply as a memorial to express their already consummated contract. If they fail to agree on the writing the contract is still valid.”
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.