72 Ohio App. 3d 553 - Stull v. Combustion Engineering, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably Taylor v. National Life Insurance (1993), Soderlun v. Public Service Company (1997)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 44 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 19 Ohio St. 3d 100 - Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co. · Henkel v. Educational Research Council of America · 24 Ohio App. 3d 22 - Cohen & Co. v. Messina · 36 Wis. 2d 388 - Forrer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. · Nork v. Fetter Printing Co.
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A promise is defined in Restatement of the Law 2d, Contracts (1981) 8, Section 2(1), as `* * * a manifestation of intention to act or refrain from acting in a specified way, so made as to justify a promisee in understanding that a commitment has been made'.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“However, a different situation is presented by [Plaintiffs] claim that his immediate supervisor, on two separate occasions, remarked that [Plaintiff] would be around until the plant closed. Thus, we find that the supervisor’s remarks, made in the context of discussing [Plaintiffs] future with the company in the event of a reduction in force, when considered in light of [Plaintiffs] thirty-four year tenure with the company and [the employer’s] policy regarding seniority rights, could reasonably be construed as a promise for continued employment until [Plaintiff] retired, or at the very least, until the company was forced to finally close its doors as a going concern. We are unable to say that rea sonable minds could not differ as to this point. Moreover, inasmuch as there is some evidence in the record as to [Plaintiffs] reliance upon these representations, the applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel is an issue which should have been resolved by the trier of fact.”
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.