Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 530 SO2D 208 - Durham v. Harbin

Durham v. Harbin’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
2
states following
April 2015
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently April 2015

4 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

1101988199020002010decided

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 456 So. 2d 1047 - Dominex, Inc. v. Key · 340 So. 2d 770 - Mazer v. Jackson Ins. Agency · 484 So. 2d 1084 - Russellville Production Credit Ass'n v. Frost · Bunch v. Garner · Holley Equipment Company v. Credit Alliance Corporation

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

  1. “a mere refusal to perform a promised act is insufficient evidence of such inherent fraud to allow equity's intervention.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “'[E]ven though [the] plaintiff may produce [evidence of] a genuine issue of *Page 1363 material fact [on matters such as the terms or existence of a contract], if the other side makes out a prima facie case under a special plea of the affirmative defenses of the Statute of Frauds, or the statute of limitations, it is incumbent upon the opposite party to come forward with at least a scintilla of proof that these defenses do not apply to him. Otherwise, summary judgment is appropriate. Thompson v. Wilson , 474 So.2d 657 , 660 (Ala. 1985).'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"[T]he part performance exception is generally the only exception to the Statute of Frauds in regard to oral contracts concerning real property. To withdraw an oral contract from the Statute, one must pay some or all of the purchase price and be put in possession of the land by the seller."”
    4 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.