Glock v. Hillestad’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 1989
8 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 Kampman v. Pittsburgh Contracting & Engineering Co. · Williamson v. Hotel Melrose · Morley v. McCaskey · McDonald v. Abraham · Browne & Co. v. John P. Sharkey 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘... when the leading object of the promise or agreement is to become guarantor or surety to the promisee, for a debt for which a third party is and continues to be primarily liable, the agreement, whether made before or after, or at the time with the promise of the principal, is within the statute, and not binding unless evidenced by writing. On the other hand, when the leading object of the promisor is to subserve some interest or purpose of his own, notwithstanding the effect is to pay or discharge the debt of another, his promise is not within the statute.’ ” State Bank of Towner, Inc., supra, 288 N.W.2d at 308, quoting from Glock v. Hillestad, 85 N.W.2d 568, 575 (N.D.1957).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““22-01-05. When a guaranty need not be in writing. — A promise to answer for the obligation of another in any of the following cases is deemed an original obligation of the promisor and need not be in writing: ⅜ ⅝ ⅝ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ “2. When the creditor parts with value or enters into an obligation in consideration of the obligation in respect to which the promise is made, in terms or under circumstances which render the party making the promise the principal debtor and the person in whose behalf it is made his surety;””
3 later decisions 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.