Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 583 FSUPP 957 - Murphy v. Gutfreund

Murphy v. Gutfreund’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
January 2003
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently January 2003

9 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

100198419902000decided

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

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)

Relies on TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. · Securities & Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co. · Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green · Public Broadcasting Service v. Network Project · Mahan v. Howell

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. “The ‘employee choice’ doctrine can only be fairly applied when the employee may choose between accepting benefits and working for a competitor at a time before the employee has made a commitment to either option. It follows that it does not apply, here, where the employee has been told by the former employer that his new position was not in competition with that employer who later offers the employee the choice of quitting the new position or accepting a proffered annuity.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The strongly held public policy reflected in New York’s Statute of Frauds would be severely undermined if a party could be estopped from asserting it every time a court found that some unfairness would otherwise result. For this reason, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is properly reserved for the limited class of cases where “the circumstances are such as to render it unconscionable to deny” the promise upon which the plaintiff has relied.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[N]either the New York Court of Appeals, nor any other New York State court has adopted the Swerdloff view of promissory estoppel.... [T]he Second Circuit does not limit its application of promissory estoppel as a 'consideration-substitute' to Swerdloff's narrow categories.”
    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.