Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 91 Ariz. 7 - Owens v. Hunter

Owens v. Hunter’s Empirical Analysis

1962

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
3
states following
December 2014
most recently cited

2 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 2014

2 district · 10 state decisions

30196219701980199020002010decided

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 Phillips v. County of Graham · Moreno v. Russell · Howard v. Norton-Morgan Commercial 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Accord and satisfaction is an affirmative defense to be pleaded, Ariz.R.Civ.P. rule 8(d), 16 A.R.S., and proved, Phillips v. County of Graham, 17 Ariz. 208, 214 , 149 P. 755, 757-758 (1915). An agreement between the parties to the satisfaction of an existing claim by a future substituted performance is an accord ex-ecutory. And it is generally presumed that actual performance and not the promise thereof constitutes the satisfaction. Williston, Contracts, § 1847 at 5205 (1938). When such substituted performance is rendered there is an accord and satisfaction which will bar an action on the original claim. On the other hand, if an accord is reached but the substituted performance never rendered by the debt- or it is usually held that the creditor may sue on the original claim. Moreno v. Russell, 47 Ariz. 38 , 53 P.2d 411 (1936); Howard v. Norton-Morgan Commercial Co., 11 Ariz. 158 , 89 P. 541 (1907).”
    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.