Juliano v. Angelini’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 2020
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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 61 (Payment-in-Kind Tax Treatment Act of 1983)
Relies on Gideon v. Cochran · Estate of Carter v. Commissioner · Bogle v. Potter · Thrift Shop, Inc. v. Alaska Mutual Savings Bank · King v. Wenger
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In determining the parties' intent, the courts look first to the parties' expressed intentions. 'If their expressions convince the court that they intended to be bound without a formal document, their contract is consummated, and the expected formal document will be nothing more than a memorial of that contract'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Young v. Hobbs · Lewis v. Lewis“Whether the parties to an informal agreement become bound prior to the drafting' and execution of contemplated formal writings is a question of intent. The intent of the parties is to be determined by the surrounding facts and circumstances of each case, and is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard of Civil Rule 52(a).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Young v. Hobbs
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.