Lance J. Marchiafava, Inc. v. Haft’s Empirical Analysis
777 F.2d 942 · 1985
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently March 2011
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · T... v. T... · 131 W. Va. 391 - Cottrell v. Nurnberger · Ricks v. Sumler · Porter v. Shaffer
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is well established ... that the doctrine of equitable estoppel does not apply to situations in which the party asserting the estoppel has suffered detriment resulting solely from another party’s failure to perform an obhgation under the oral agreement.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The doctrine of part performance is not available in Virginia in such actions at law for damages for breach of contract to take an oral agreement out of the statute of frauds.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Marchiafava, Inc. v. Haft, et al., the Court held: Because the doctrine of part performance does not operate in actions at law for damages for breach of an oral contract to take the contract out of the statute of frauds, the district court committed error in ruling that the doctrine took the oral agreement in question out of the statute of frauds. Id., Id., 777 F.2d 942 (4th Cir. 1985).”
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.