Walker v. KFC Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
728 F.2d 1215 · 1984
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 8 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably 25 Va. App. 193 - McGee v. Commonwealth (1997), Landes Construction Co. v. Royal Bank of Canada (1987)
29 federal appellate · 8 district · 6 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 California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp. · ITT Continental Baking Co. v. William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. · 18 Cal. 3d 335 - Goodman v. Kennedy · Simblest v. Maynard · Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation District
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[p]romissory estoppel is not a doctrine designed to give a party . . . a second bite at the apple in the event that it fails to prove a breach of contract.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Under such circumstances, the only reliance which can make the promisor’s failure to perform actionable is the promisee’s doing what was requested. If that reliance was detrimental, it would constitute consideration. If it was not detrimental, it would not constitute consideration; and since detrimental reliance is an essential feature of promissory estoppel, that doctrine could not be invoked to make the promisor liable.... In other words, when the promisee’s reliance was bargained for, the law of consideration applies; and it is only where the reliance was unbargained for that there is room for application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The purpose of [the doctrine of promissory estoppel] is to make a promise binding, under certain circumstances, without consideration in the usual sense of something bargained for and given in exchange. If the promisee’s performance was requested at the time the promisor made his promise and that performance was bargained for, the doctrine is inapplicable.” ( 70 Cal. 2d at 249 , 449 P.2d at 468 , 74 Cal. Rptr. at 404 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.