Prichard v. Clay’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 2015
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 64 Wash. 2d 231 - Ross v. Harding · Peterson v. Wirum · Mitford v. De Lasala · Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. O'KELLEY · 24 Tenn. App. 616 - Frierson v. International Agricultural 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[plarties do not undertake obligations contained in a separate document unless their contract clearly says so.” 8 . LSC cursorily argues for the first time on appeal that Langberg should have been precluded from testifying as an expert because he failed to file a pre-trial witness report, as required by Alaska Civil Rule 26(a)(2)(B). Even if it were adequately preserved, this argument would be meritless, as Rule 26(a)(2)(B) applies only to”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the court's first duty is to determine the meaning of the contract, and extrinsic evidence is admissible for this purpose.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“duty to perform may bave matured despite the condition's nonoccurrence if [the party] prevented or hindered its occurrence”
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.