Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 39 Wash. 2d 722 - Grant v. Auvil

39 Wash. 2d 722 - Grant v. Auvil’s Empirical Analysis

1951

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
3
states following
August 2008
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently August 2008

3 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

50195119601970198019902000decided

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 Western Metals Co v. Hartman Ingot Metal Co. · Jones-Scott Co. v. Ellensburg Milling Co. · Baillargeon, Winslow & Co. v. Westenfeld · Lewis v. Elliot Bay Logging Co. · Swank v. Liquidators

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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In order to satisfy the requirements of [the statute], the note or memorandum may consist of several writings, though the writing containing the requisite terms is unsigned, if it appears from an examination of all the writings that the writing which is signed by the party to be charged was signed with the intention that it refer to the unsigned writing, and that the writings are so connected by internal reference in the signed memorandum to the unsigned one, that they may be said to constitute one paper relating to the contract.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “If the signed memorandum makes no reference to the unsigned memorandum, they may not be read together. Parol evidence is inadmissible to connect them. . . . Here, we have nothing to indicate that the postal card refers to an extrinsic writing. It does not identify the unsigned written memorandum of October 12, 1949, nor does it identify any of its terms. ... To conclude otherwise would be to subvert the spirit of the statute.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “`If the signed memorandum makes no reference to the unsigned memorandum, they may not be read together. Parol evidence is inadmissible to connect them. . . . To conclude otherwise would be to subvert the spirit of the statute.'”
    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.