Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 471 SW2D 1 - Ligon v. Parr

Ligon v. Parr’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
states following
December 2016
most recently cited

1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 2016

1 district · 3 state decisions

3019711980199020002010decided

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 Miedema v. Wormhoudt · David Roth's Sons, Inc. v. Wright and Taylor, Inc. · 128 F. Supp. 311 - Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Illinois Central R. Co. · 71 N.J. Super. 489 - Mortgage Corp. of NJ v. Manhattan Savings Bank · Paragon Oil Co. v. A. B. Hughes & Sons

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

  1. “It is not required that parties have reciprocal rights of the same kind or nature. David Roth’s Sons, Inc. v. Wright and Taylor, Inc., Ky., 343 S.W.2d 389 (1961). As said in Simpson on Contracts, 2nd Ed, page 86: ‘The fairness of an exchange is legally irrelevant. So long as a man gets what he has bargained for, and it is of some value in the eyes of the law, the courts will not inquire whether it is of any value to him, or whether its value is in any way proportionate to his promise given in return. The reason for the rule is not far to seek. Persons must be free to contract; and it is for the law to enforce the agreement they have made, not to make it or to correct it for them.’ [Emphasis added.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he basic problem is one of reciprocal considerations. An option contract is binding and enforceable against the person giving the option if the other party has furnished a quid pro quo. This may consist of performing services or incurring obligations which constitute either a detriment to the party granted the option or a benefit to the party giving it.”
    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.