Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 481 A.2d 484 - Lee v. Foote

Lee v. Foote’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
June 2020
most recently cited

4 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently June 2020

4 district · 9 state decisions

4019841990200020102020decided

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 Cobb v. Standard Drug Co., Inc. · Edmund J. Flynn Co. v. LaVay · United States ex rel. Susi Contracting Co. v. Zara Contracting Co. · Gill v. State · Oliver v. Campbell

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

  1. “[T]he District of Columbia Court of Appeals has recognized that, in the narrow circumstance '[w]hen an express contract has been repudiated or materially breached by the defendant, restitution for the value of the non-breaching party's performance is available as an alternative to an action for damages on the contract.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.