Graham v. Henderson Elevator Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1916
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably Nucor Corporation v. Aceros Y Maquilas De Occidente Sa De Cv (1994), 109 Ind. App. 330 - Block v. Sherman (1941)
2 federal appellate · 41 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 Williams v. Morris · Robinson v. State · State ex rel. Devening v. Bartholomew · Wills v. Ross · Wright v. . Weeks
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . It seems to be well settled, that a memorandum, in order to make another writing a part thereof, so as to constitute a part of the contract, must refer to such other writing; and that parol proof of the connection of the papers is not admissible to establish a contract required by the statute of frauds to be in writing.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The connection between the signed and unsigned papers can not be made by parol evidence that they ■ were actually intended by the parties to be read together, or of facts and circumstances from which such intention may be inferred. The connection between them must appear by internal evidence derived from the signed memorandum. Parol testimony will be received only for the purpose of interpretation or explanation, where technical terms are employed, or to identify papers which, by a reference in the signed memorandum, are made parts of it.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The party to be charged', under the statute of frauds, means the defendant to the action. The memorandum must be signed by him but need not, necessarily be signed by the plaintiff in the suit”
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.