Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 87 F.3d 224 - Miller v. Broadcasting Incorporated

Miller v. Broadcasting Incorporated’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
10
states following
December 2022
most recently cited

1 district · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably Uno Restaurants, Inc. v. Boston Kenmore Realty Corp. (2004), Waste Connections of Kansas, Inc. v. Ritchie Corp. (2013)

1 district · 13 state decisions — followed in 10 states

1901990200020102020decided

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 Mucha v. King · Market Street Associates Limited Partnership v. Frey · Walgreen Company v. Sara Creek Property Company Bv · Gj Leasing Company Incorporated Si Lp v. Union Electric Company · Texaco, Inc. v. Creel

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

  1. “[without [an exact matching requirement], the right [of first refusal] is an impediment to the marketability of property, because it gives the holder of the right a practical power to impede a sale to a third party by refusing to match the third party’s offer exactly and then arguing that the discrepancy was immaterial.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “First, and most obviously, the grantor of the right can waive exact matching .... Second, proper names need not be matched .... Third, the grantor of the option may not act in bad faith, which in this context means may not, for the purpose of discouraging the exercise of the right, procure from the third party terms that the grantor knows are unacceptable to the holder of the right of first refusal.”
    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.