Wright & Seaton, Inc. v. Prescott’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably Gibbs v. Air Canada (1987), Michael J. Eskra v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company (1997)
2 federal appellate · 37 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 Frissell v. Nichols · 384 So. 2d 1253 - DeMarco v. Publix Super Markets, Inc. · Henderson v. Kendrick · Tampa Northern R. R. Co. v. City of Tampa · Thompson v. Shell Petroleum Corp.
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) the absence of mutuality of remedies will not destroy an agreement's validity; (b) a want of mutuality is no defense to an executed contract; (c) a promise lacking mutuality at its inception becomes binding on it promisor after performance by the promisee; and (d) where there is no other consideration for a contract, mutual provisions must be binding on both parties, but where there is any other consideration for the contract, "mutuality of obligation" is not essential.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a]lthough a contract is lacking in mutuality at its inception, such defect may be cured by the subsequent conduct of the parties. Want of mutuality is no defense in the case of an executed contract, and a promise lacking mutuality at its inception becomes binding on the promisor after performance by the promisee.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he court should arrive at an interpretation consistent with reason, probability, and the practical aspect of the transaction between the parties.”
3 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.