Noller v. GMC Truck & Coach Division’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 48 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Wolfgang v. Mid-America Motorsports, Inc. (1997), State Ex Rel. Stovall v. Reliance Insurance (2005)
12 federal appellate · 48 district · 22 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 Turner v. Halliburton Co. · Cornwell v. Jespersen · Corrugated Paper Products, Inc. v. Longview Fibre Co. · Fasse v. Lower Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. · Martin v. Edwards
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"(1) the existence of a business relationship or expectancy with the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) knowledge of the relationship or expectancy by the defendant; (3) that, except for the conduct of the defendant, plaintiff was reasonably certain to have continued the relationship or realized the expectancy; (4) intentional misconduct by defendant; and (5) damages suffered by plaintiff as a direct or proximate result of defendant's misconduct."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The district court granted summary judgment because the alleged interference did not arise from a relationship between [buyer] and a third person, but from [buyer’s] potential relationship with [franchi sor] via the prospective franchise agreement. [Buyer] argues on appeal that he does not claim that [franchisor] interfered with their expected relationship from the franchise agreement, but with his expected advantage with [seller] and potential GMC truck purchasers. We have already noted that it was [buyer’s] decision to end his relationship with [seller]. As to the advantage to be gained through potential GMC truck purchasers, this was only to be gained through [franchisor’s] approval of a franchise agreement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Noller was not an intended beneficiary to the contract between Beard and GMC and is thus not entitled to sue for contractual benefits”). 6 . The court notes that its ruling renders moot NRECA's assertion that Spires failed to set forth in her complaint a third-party beneficiary claim based on a breach of contract theory. The court thus expresses no opinion on that issue. 7 . Spires herself states that”
1 later decision 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.