Wisconsin Supreme Court· 3/2/1965
Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc.
Citations
- 26 Wis. 2d 683
- 133 N.W.2d 267
- 1965 Wisc. LEXIS 1026
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “[T]he doctrine of promissory estoppel was invoked as a substitute for consideration rendering a gratuitous promise enforceable as a contract.”
- “The wrong [alleged in the promissory estoppel claim] is not primarily in depriving the plaintiff of the promised reward but in causing the plaintiff to change position to his detriment.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: CurRie
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
107 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Barry C. Cosgrove, Cross-Appellee v. Joseph Bartolotta and Mary-Bart, Llc, Doing Business as Bartolotta's Lake Park BistroSeventh Circuit· 1998-07-22· cited 395×
- Skycom Corporation and Gerald M. Walters v. Telstar CorporationSeventh Circuit· 1987-03-17· cited 161×
- All-Tech Telecom, Inc. v. Amway CorporationSeventh Circuit· 1999-04-07· cited 127×
- PREP Tours Inc. v. American Youth Soccer Org.First Circuit· 2019-01-08· cited 115×
- Producciones Tommy Muñiz, Inc. v. Comité Organizador de los VIII Juegos Panamericanos (COPAN)Supreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1982-11-09· cited 111×
- State Bank of Standish v. CurryMichigan Supreme Court· 1993-04-13· cited 105×
- Schade v. DiethrichArizona Supreme Court· 1988-09-20· cited 96×
- Banas v. Matthews International Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1985-12-20· cited 93×
- Newton Tractor Sales, Inc. v. Kubota Tractor Corp.Illinois Supreme Court· 2009-04-02· cited 93×
- Loranger Construction Corp. v. E. F. Hauserman Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court· 1978-03-23· cited 72×
- Vigoda v. Denver Urban Renewal AuthoritySupreme Court of Colorado· 1982-06-07· cited 67×
- Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1995-01-20· cited 65×
- Tiffany Incorporated v. WMK Transit Mix, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1972-02-09· cited 63×
- Chrysler Corp. v. Chaplake Holdings, Ltd.Supreme Court of Delaware· 2003-05-09· cited 63×
- Cohen v. Cowles Media Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1992-03-17· cited 62×
- Jones v. Denver Public SchoolsTenth Circuit· 2005-11-02· cited 59×
- Lindquist Ford, Inc. v. Middleton Motors, Inc.Seventh Circuit· 2009-03-18· cited 55×
- Chevy Chase Bank, FSB v. Briese (In Re Briese)W.D. Wisconsin· 1996-05-06· cited 55×
- Janke Construction Company, Inc. v. Vulcan Materials CompanySeventh Circuit· 1976-01-06· cited 54×
- Monetti, S.P.A., and Melform U.S.A., Inc. v. Anchor Hocking CorporationSeventh Circuit· 1991-05-01· cited 52×
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Drennan v. Star Paving Co.California Supreme Court· 1958-12-31· cited 140×
- Schafer v. Fraser Et UxOregon Supreme Court· 1956-02-25· cited 60×
- Chrysler Corp. v. QuimbySupreme Court of Delaware· 1958-04-30· cited 42×
- Feinberg v. Pfeiffer CompanyMissouri Court of Appeals· 1959-03-17· cited 41×
- Peoples National Bank v. Linebarger Construction Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas· 1951-05-28· cited 37×
- Flamingo v. City of WaukeshaWisconsin Supreme Court· 1952-10-07· cited 19×
- Hook v. Southern California Waiters AllianceCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1958-03-20· cited 16×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.