Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 521 So. 2d 983 - Pranzo v. Itec, Inc.

521 So. 2d 983 - Pranzo v. Itec, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
January 2018
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently January 2018

7 state decisions

401988199020002010decided

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 409 So. 2d 784 - Ryan v. Charles Townsend Ford, Inc. · 438 So. 2d 757 - Torres v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. · Earnest v. Pritchett-Moore, Inc. · Clanton v. Bains Oil Co., Inc. · Bates v. Jim Walter Resources, Inc.

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

  1. “"(1) [F]alse representation (2) of a material existing fact (3) relied upon by the plaintiff (4) who was damaged as a proximate result of the misrepresentation. Earnest v. Prichett-Moore, Inc. , 401 So.2d 752 (Ala. 1981). If fraud is based upon a promise to perform or abstain from performing in the future, two additional elements must be proved: (1) the defendant's intention, at the time of the alleged misrepresentation, not to do the act promised, coupled with (2) an intent to deceive. Clanton v. Bains Oil Co. , 417 So.2d 149 (Ala. 1982)."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"With regard to Pranzo's arguments that ITEC breached its covenant or contract with him and that he was wrongfully terminated, we likewise find no error. Pranzo executed the document with the employment-at-will clause in it before beginning work at ITEC. Therefore, `[any oral agreements] would have merged into the subsequent written employment contract.' Because `[a]n at will employment contract is terminable by either party for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all,' we are constrained to uphold the circuit court's judgment on Pranzo's claims."”
    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.