Robinson v. Gardiner’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 11 district · 53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably Strickler Engineering Corp. v. Seminar, Inc. (1956), Horsey v. Horsey (1993)
3 federal appellate · 11 district · 53 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.
Relationships
Relies on Hoffman v. Chapman · Thomson v. Gortner · Reiser Co. v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc. · Martz v. Jones · 58 F. Supp. 1011 - HW Kastor & Sons Adv. Co. v. Grove Laboratories
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Of course, no action will lie upon a contract, whether written or verbal, where such a contract is vague or uncertain in its essential terms. The parties must express themselves in such terms that it can be ascertained to a reasonable degree of certainty what they mean. If the agreement be so vague and indefinite that it is not possible to collect from it the intention of the parties, it is void because neither the court nor jury could make a contract for the parties. Such a contract cannot be enforced in equity nor sued upon in law. For a contract to be legally enforceable, its language must not only be sufficiently definite to clearly inform the parties to it of what they may be called upon by its terms to do, but also must be sufficiently clear and definite in order that the courts, which may be required to enforce it, may be able to know the purpose and intention of the parties.”
13 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.