Johnson v. Curran’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

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

1. “Whether a binding agreement is completely integrated or partially integrated, it supersedes inconsistent terms of prior agreements. To apply this rule, the court must make preliminary determinations that there is an integrated agreement and that it is inconsistent with the term in question. ... Those determinations are made in accordance with all relevant evidence, and require interpretation both of the integrated agreement and of the prior agreement. The existence of the prior agreement may be a circumstance which sheds light on the meaning of the integrated agreement, but the integrated agreement must be given a meaning to which its language is reasonably susceptible when read in light of all the circumstances.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Alaska Diversified Contractors, Inc. v. Lower Kuskokwim School District

2. “First, there must have been a misrepresentation. Second, the misrepresentation must have been either fraudulent or material. Third, the misrepresentation must have induced the recipient to make the contract. Fourth, the recipient's reliance on the misrepresentation must have been justified.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Zeilinger v. SOHIO Alaska Petroleum Co.

3. “promissory estoppel is a principle applicable to situations where a promise unsupported by consideration is sought to be enforced... .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. ALASKA DIVERSIFIED CONTR. v. School Dist.