78 Ohio App. 3d 176 - Hutton v. Monograms Plus, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
13 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 51 Cal. 2d 119 - Mattei v. Hopper · 20 Cal. App. 3d 251 - Kadner v. Shields · Ard Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. v. Dr. Pepper Co. · Cranetex, Inc. v. Precision Crane & Rigging of Houston, Inc. · 105 Ohio App. 502 - Enterprise Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Howard Investment Corp.
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[c]ontract clauses which make the duty of performance of one of the parties conditional upon his satisfaction are generally referred to as `satisfaction clauses.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“commercial or financial matters are involved”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“When it is a condition of an obligor’s duty that he be satisfied with respect to the obligee’s performance ... and it is practicable to determine whether a reasonable person in the position of the obligor would be satisfied, an interpretation is preferred under which the condition occurs if such a reasonable person in the position of the obligor would be satisfied. [Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 228 (1981).]”
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.