Holley Equipment Company v. Credit Alliance Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
821 F.2d 1531 · 1987
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Feliciano v. City of Miami Beach (2013), Hayes v. Equitable Energy Resources Co. (2001)
4 federal appellate · 3 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · Bell v. Preferred Life Assurance Society · Van T. Junkins & Associates, Inc. v. U.S. Industries, Inc. · Tippens v. Celotex Corp. · Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. J. D. Pittman Tractor 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The purpose of a statute of frauds is to ‘prevent fraud and perjury in actions brought on contracts.’ Campbell[ v. Campbell], 371 So.2d [55,] 60 [ (Ala.Civ.App.1979) ]; see Dean[ v. Myers], 466 So.2d [952,] 955 [(Ala.1985) ]; Cox v. Cox, 292 Ala. 106 , 289 So.2d 609, 612 (1974). There is obviously ‘little danger of fraud or perjury where both parties admit to the substance of the contract.’ Campbell, 371 So.2d at 60. Thus, the judicial admissions exception to the statute of frauds permits enforcement of an unwritten agreement when the existence and the terms of the oral contract are as certain as if they were reduced to a writing. See Cox, 289 So.2d at 612 . Here, however, there is a complete disagreement concerning the existence of a contract because of a substantial discrepancy in the terms of the alleged agreement.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““This Court does not believe that [the judicial-admission exception] is applicable in this situation, since defendant has not admitted a contract for sale was made on the terms alleged by plaintiff.... “To allow defendant’s testimony to avert the bar of the statute of frauds would place this Court in the undesirable position of determining which party is correctly stating the agreed upon terms of the sale. The statute of frauds was designed to prevent just such a swearing match.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“This exception codifies the general estop-pel principle that parties cannot admit to the existence and substance of an oral agreement and then attempt to bar its enforcement due to the lack of a writing ... the purpose of a Statute of Frauds is to “prevent fraud and perjuty in actions brought on contracts.” [Tjhere is obviously “little danger of fraud or perjuty where both parties admit to the substance of the contract.””
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.