Van Dyke v. Glover’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably Ultracuts Ltd. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2000), City of Clinton v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp. (2010)
4 federal appellate · 51 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 Williams v. Morris · Deitsch v. Tillery · Rabalaias v. Barnett · 26 Ark. App. 83 - Dickson v. Delhi Seed Co. · 32 Ark. App. 19 - ERC Mortgage Group, Inc. v. Luper
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The blackletter law on promissory estoppel is found in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts: A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice requires.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) Unless the agreement, promise, or contract, or some memorandum or note thereof, upon which an action is brought is made in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or signed by some other person properly authorized by the person sought to be charged, no action shall be brought to charge any: [[Image here]] (6) Person upon any contract, promise, or agreement that is not to be performed within one (1) year from the making of the contract, promise, or agreement. (b) No promise to pay a debt or obligation which has been discharged in bankruptcy shall be valid unless the promise is in writing. |s(c) No action may be maintained to charge any person upon any promise made after full age to pay any debt contracted during infancy, unless the promise or ratification is made by some writing signed by the party to be charged with the promise or ratification. (d)(1) No action may be maintained by or against any person or entity on any agreement to extend credit or to renew or modify existing credit in an amount greater than ten thousand dollars ($10,-000) or to make any other accommodation relating to such credit, unless the agreement is in writing and is signed by the party to be charged with the agreement, or the duly authorized agent of such party.”
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.