Harris v. Hine’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently July 2013 · most notably 36 Cal. 3d 752 - Seaman's Direct Buying Service, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co. (1984), Riegel Fiber Corp. v. Anderson Gin Co. (1975)
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 20 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 123 Ga. App. 706 - Jinright v. Russell · Pendley v. Lake Harbin Civic Assn.
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“any authentication which identifies the party to be charged”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Growing crops, including cotton, are `goods' within the contemplation of the above section (see Ga.L. 1962, pp. 156, 173; Code Ann. § 109A-2-105(1)). It is undisputed that the defendant H.E. Harris signed the writing on behalf of H.E. Harris & Sons. A quantity was sufficiently shown for an `output' contract for the sale of all the defendants' cotton produced on their 825 acres (see Ga.L. 1962, pp. 156, 185; Code Ann. § 109A-2-306(1)). The document indicated that an agreement to sell had been made. Clearly this was more than the mere unaccepted offer the defendants contended it to be, and was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Uniform Commercial Code statute of frauds for an enforceable contract." 232 Ga. at 186 , 205 S.E.2d at 849-850 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Austin v. Montgomery“"(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a contract for the sale of goods for the price of five hundred dollars ($500.00) or more is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by his authorized agent or broker. A writing is not insufficient because it omits or incorrectly states a term agreed upon but the contract is not enforceable under this paragraph beyond the quantity of goods shown in such writing." (Emphasis added)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Austin v. Montgomery
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.