9 Ariz. App. 354 - Hackin v. Rupp’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently June 2015
16 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 4 Ariz. App. 385 - Mozes v. Daru · 2 Ariz. App. 236 - Harold Laz Advertising Company v. Dumes · Behrens v. Behrens · 3 Ariz. App. 420 - Weber v. Bates
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The reason for such rules is expressed in 83 C.J.S. Stipulations § 4, at p. 4: “The rule requiring stipulations to be reduced to writing was adopted to prevent fraudulent claims of oral stipulations, and to prevent disputes as to the existence and terms of agreements and to relieve the court of the necessity of determining such disputes, which it has been said are often more perplexing than the case itself. The time of the court should not be taken up on controversial matters of this character.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““80(d) Agreement or consent of counsel or parties. No agreement or consent between parties or attorneys in any matter is binding if disputed, unless it is in writing, or made orally in open court, and entered in the minutes.””
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.