United States ex rel. Union Building Materials Corp. v. Haas & Haynie Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
577 F.2d 568 · 1978
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently December 2009 · most notably Libby, McNeill, & Libby v. City National Bank (1978), Hunt Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Supreme Oil Co. (1987)
44 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 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 Amperex Electronic Corp. v. New York Racing Assn., Inc. · Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe · Magna Oil Corp. v. Bateson · United States v. El Paso Natural Gas Co. · Costello v. United States
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(e)xtrinsic evidence is properly admitted to help ascertain the intended meaning of ambiguous writings,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[S]ince Hawaiian case law regarding contract interpretation is sparse, we will have to assume that a Hawaii state court would apply general contract principles. This assumption is justified by reference to the Restatement of Contracts in several Hawaii cases In re Taxes, Aiea Dairy, Ltd., 46 Haw. 292, 380 P.2d 156 (1963); Kaiser Hawaii Kai Development Co. v. Murray, 49 Haw. 214, 412 P.2d 925 (1966). We will look to the Restatement (Second) of Contracts as a primary source for the most recent statement of these general principles.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[i]f neither party knows or has reason to know the meaning attached by the other, or if both parties know or have reason to know the meaning attached by the other, then there is no contract. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 21(A)(1). However, if only one party knows or has reason to know of the conflict in meaning, the contract will be interpreted in favor of the party who does not know of the conflict. Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 21A(2), 227(2), and 238.”
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.