Curtis v. Hannah’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Huff v. Travelers Indemnity Co. · 160 Ind. App. 244 - Podgorny v. Great Central Insurance Co. · 168 Ind. App. 336 - Hale v. Peabody Coal Company · Central Realty, Inc. v. Hillman's Equipment, Inc. · 169 Ind. App. 624 - SECO CHEMICALS, INC., ETC. v. Stewart
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Even where it appears that it was intended that others sign an agreement, it is not necessarily invariably true that all must sign before any are bound. This depends upon the agreement and whether it appears that part of the consideration for signing was that others would also sign and be bound jointly with them. It is usually to be assumed that the parties signing an agreement are bound thereby unless it appears that they did not so intend unless others also signed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Skinner v. Haugseth“In the absence of a showing that a contract is not to be deemed complete unless signed by all parties, the parties signing may be bound though others have not signed. (Emphasis added.)”
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.