Young v. Data Switch Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
4 district · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Larsen Chelsey Realty Co. v. Larsen (1995), Foley v. Huntington Co. (1996)
4 district · 52 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 United Families of America v. Kendrick · Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp. · United Families of America v. Kendrick · Jackson v. R. G. Whipple, Inc. · Russell v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“does not within a reasonable time manifest to the other party his intention to avoid [the contract].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the dispositive question is not why the plaintiff chose not to disaffirm a contract that is voidable for duress, but whether, once the duress had ceased, he had the opportunity to do so. These cases hold, in accordance with the Restatement, that ratification results, as a matter of law, `if the party who executed the contract under duress accepts the benefits flowing from it or remains silent or acquiesces in the contract for any considerable length of time after opportunity is afforded to annul or avoid it.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[R]atification of a voidable contract is ordinarily a matter of intent.... As the plaintiff acknowledges, however, intent may be inferred from silence as well as from affirmative acts.... The question necessarily becomes, therefore, whether the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that, as a matter of law, the plaintiff could no longer disaffirm the severance agreement in this case.”
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.