Haspray v. Pasarelli’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently November 1995
16 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 Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp. · 96 Cal. App. 2d 471 - Ellis v. Klaff · Craig v. Zelian · Montanaro v. Pandolfini · Waterhouse v. Capital Investment Co.
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Two separate writings may be sufficiently connected by internal evidence without any express words of reference of one to the other. That they refer to the same transaction and state the terms thereof may appear from the character of the subject matter and from the nature of the terms. 2 Corbin, Contracts § 514. "All of the essential terms of the oral agreement alleged can be found in the two written documents. If they were intended by the parties to constitute one transaction appellants should have been permitted to present evidence to show this * * *." 79 Nev. at 208 , 380 P.2d 919 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Where more than one writing is used to satisfy the requirements of the statute of frauds, some nexus between the writings must be shown. While the phrase “internal reference” is often used to describe the requisite nexus, it need not be in the form of express cross-references between the writings. Instead, the requirement may be satisfied by parol evidence where, as here, it is apparent that the memo-randa referred to the same subject matter or transaction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Pentax Corp. v. Boyd“If they were intended by the parties to constitute one transaction appellants should have been permitted to present evidence to show this ..., and the fact that Exhibit `E' is an unsigned document does not preclude the admission of parol evidence to connect Exhibit `E' with Exhibit `A'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gregerson v. Jensen
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.