Wheeler v. White’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 1 district · 100 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 161 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably El Chico Corp. v. Poole (1987), Sun Oil Co. (Delaware) v. Madeley (1981)
30 federal appellate · 1 district · 100 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 Dickerson v. Colgrove · Allegheny College v. National Chautauqua County Bank of Jamestown · Morris v. Gaines · Goodman v. Dicker · Kearns v. Andree
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 161 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.””
12 later decisions quote this exact passage“'The vital principle is that he who by his language or conduct leads another to do what he would not otherwise have done, shall not subject such person to loss or injury by disappointing the expectations upon which he acted. Such a change of position is sternly forbidden * * *. This remedy is always so applied as to promote the ends of justice.' " 398 S.W.2d at 96. 21 Although promissory estoppel normally is considered a defensive plea, "it may be used by a plaintiff as a ground of entitlement to relief.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““[Promissory estoppel] does not create a contract where none existed before, but only prevents a party from insisting upon his strict legal rights when it would be unjust to allow him to enforce them.... The function of the doctrine of promissory estoppel is, under our view, defensive in that it estops a promi-sor from denying the enforceability of the promise.””
4 later decisions 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.