Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 588 SW2D 86 - Casterline v. Stuerman

Casterline v. Stuerman’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
November 2017
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently November 2017

2 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

10019791980199020002010decided

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 Downey v. United Weatherproofing, Inc. · Owen v. Williams · Peer v. MFA Milling Co. · Harber v. Ohio National Life Insurance · Harber v. Ohio National Life Insurance Company

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

  1. “No county ... shall make any contract, unless the same shall be within the scope of its powers or be expressly authorized by law, nor unless such contract be made upon a consideration wholly to be performed or executed subsequent to the making of the contract; and such contract, including the consideration, shall be in writing and dated when made, and shall be subscribed by the parties thereto, or their agents authorized by law and duly appointed and authorized in writing.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The right of recovery for inducing a breach of a contract is but one instance of the protection which the law affords against unjustified interference in business relations. An existing contract may be a basis for greater protection, but some protection is appropriate against unjustified interference with reasonable expectancies of commercial relations even where an existing contract is lacking. The unjustifiable character of the alleged wrongdoer’s conduct and the harm caused thereby may be equally clear in both instances, but the differentiation between them relates to the scope of the privileges, or the kind and amount of interference that is justifiable in view of the differences in the facts.””
    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.