Holbert v. Echeverria’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Merrick v. Northern Natural Gas Co. (1990), Hough v. Leonard (1993)
5 federal appellate · 46 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 Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Cort v. Ash · Cannon v. University of Chicago · Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell · Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In any civil action to recover for labor or services rendered, or on an open account, a statement of account, account stated, note, bill, negotiable instrument, or contract relating to the purchase or sale of goods, wares, or merchandise, unless otherwise provided by law or the contract which is the subject of the action, the prevailing party shall be allowed a reasonable attorney fee to be set by the court, to be taxed and collected as costs.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“If recovery is sought for labor and services, as in the case of a failure to pay for them, the statute [§936] applies. Its provisions are inapposite if the suit be one for damages arising from the breach of an agreement that relates to labor and services.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Seller may be allowed a counsel fee only if his plea for the award fall under the categories enumerated in 12 0.8.1981 § 936.24. Three alternatives could make § 986 applicable to the cause of action Purchasers advanced in this case: (1) the contract in suit provides for recovery of attorney's fee, (2) the contract was for labor or services, or (8) the house could qualify for inclusion under the rubric of "goods, wares, or merchandise." Firstly, a reading of the contract between Purchasers and Seller reveals no allusion to attorney's fee in the event of litigation. As there is no contractual basis for recovery of a fee, Seller may not rest his plea on that basis. Secondly, the record indicates the primary purpose of the contract was to construct the house and to convey to Purchasers the real property on which it was located. The applicability of § 986's labor- and-services provisions is determined by the underlying nature of the suit. If recovery is sought for labor and services, as . in the case of a failure to pay for them, the statute applies. Its provisions are inappo-site if the suit be one for damages arising from the breach of an agreement that relates to labor and services. The question to be resolved is whether the damages arose directly from, or are merely collateral to, the rendition of labor or services. Seller did not counterclaim for the value of his labor and services. In fact, the real property in question had been sold to a third party before this cause went t”
2 later decisions 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.