Penny v. Giuffrida’s Empirical Analysis
897 F.2d 1543 · 1990
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Moothart v. Bell (1994), Tefel v. Reno (1999)
26 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 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 Santobello v. New York · Federal Crop Ins Corporation v. Merrill · Heckler v. Community Health Services of Crawford County, Inc. · Schweiker v. Hansen · Utah Power Light Company v. United States No 202 United States
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the party to be estopped must have known the facts; (2) the party to be estopped must intend that his conduct will be acted upon or must so act that the party asserting the estoppel has the right to believe it was so intended; (3) the party asserting estoppel must be ignorant of the true facts; and (4) the party asserting estoppel must rely on the other party's conduct to his injury.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“from taking a legal position inconsistent with an earlier statement or action that places his adversary at a disadvantage.”
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.