Vogelhut v. Kandel’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 6 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Cheek v. United Healthcare of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc. (2003), Blondell v. Littlepage (2010)
2 federal appellate · 6 district · 34 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 Farmers & Merchants National Bank v. Schlossberg · Hercules Powder Co. v. Harry T. Campbell Sons Co. · Blumenthal v. Heron · Shimp v. Shimp · 66 Md. App. 170 - Vogelhut v. Kandel
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee is sufficient valuable consideration to support a contract. Legal detriment means giving up something which immediately prior thereto the promisee was privileged to retain, or doing or refraining from doing something which he was then privileged not to do, or not to refrain from doing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“formulated to prohibit brokering, to protect a client from clandestine payment and employment, and to prevent aggrandizement of fees”
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.