Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 855 P.2d 342 - Davis v. Davis

Davis v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
2
states following
December 2020
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 2 district · 29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably Hatfield v. Board Of County Commissioners For Converse County (1995), Roussalis v. Wyoming Medical Center, Inc. (2000)

7 federal appellate · 2 district · 29 state decisions

1701993200020102020decided

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 26 Wis. 2d 683 - Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. · 150 Wis. 2d 80 - U.S. Oil Co. v. Midwest Auto Care Services, Inc. · Allen v. Allen · Roth v. First Security Bank of Rock Springs · Crosby v. Estate of Strahan

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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “injury arising from actions or declarations which have been acted on in good faith and which would be inequitable to permit a party to retract.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) a clear and definite agreement; (2) proof that the party urging the doctrine acted to its detriment in reasonable reliance on the agreement; and (3) a finding that the equities support the enforcement of the agreement.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Davis v. Davis, 855 P.2d 342, 348 (Wyo.1993). We have described reasonable reliance as follows: In Provence [v. Hilltop National Bank, 780 P.2d 990 (Wyo.1989)], we explained that detriment in reasonable reliance is closely tied to the existence of a clear and definite agreement. A reasonable person does not rely to his or her detriment on an oral agreement unless it is sufficiently clear and definite as to induce him or her to act. Provence.”
    2 later decisions 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.