How cited: Reece, Adm'r v. Reece · Go Syfert

Reece, Adm'r v. Reece (1965)

green · 44 citation events across 11 courts. Showing the 12 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1965 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
196519952026
green Dauda v. Jean (2024)
Rule Authority · D. Maryland
While it is true that past consideration is generally insufficient to support a present promise, “a present promise to pay in consideration of an act previously done at the request of the promisor will be enforceable as supported by sufficient consideration.” Reece v. Reece, 239 Md. 649, 660 (1965).
green Lloyd v. Niceta (2022)
Rule Authority · Md. Ct. Spec. App.
Moreover, “a recital of facts which may constitute consideration in an unsealed written agreement, is prima facie evidence of those facts[,]” although the “parol evidence rule does not prevent a rebuttal of the truth of that statement by extrinsic evidence.” Reece v. Reece, 239 Md. 649, 658 (1965).
Rule Authority · D. Maryland
Reece v. Reece, 212 A.2d 468, 474 (Md. 1965); Williston on Contracts, § 8:11 (4 ed.).
Rule Authority · D. Del.
Hercules argues that even if the Flex-5 application was an offer plaintiff could have accepted, his pre-existing decision to retire could not support any resulting contract, as “past consideration is no consideration.” Murray v. Lichtman, 339 F.2d 749 , 752 n. 5 (D.C.Cir.1964); see Estate of Bogley v. United States, 514 F.2d 1027, 1033 , 206 Ct.Cl. 695 (1975); Reece v. Reece, 239 Md. 649 , 212 A.2d 468, 474 (1965); Community Sports v. Denver Ringsby Rockets, 429 Pa. 565 , 24
green Weinsaft v. Smith (1983)
Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.
See also Kelley v. Rouse, 10 Cal.Rptr., 235, 238 , 188 Cal.App.2d 92 (1961); Reece v. Reece, 239 Md. 649 , 212 A.2d 468, 473 (1965); 17 Am.Jur.2d, Contracts, §§ 90, 91, p. 432-434; 17 C.J.S.
Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.
See also Kelley v. Rouse, 10 Cal.Rptr., 235, 238 , 188 Cal.App.2d 92 (1961); Reece v. Reece, 239 Md. 649 , 212 A.2d 468, 473 (1965); 17 Am.Jur.2d, Contracts, §§ 90, 91, p. 432-434; 17 C.J.S.
green Taylor v. Wahby (1974)
Rule Authority · Md.
J. 697.’ ” See also Reece, Adm’r v. Reece, 239 Md. 649, 657 , 212 A. 2d 468, 472 (1965).
Cited (see also) · Neb. · signal: see, e.g. · 2 citations in this opinion
See, e.g., Reece v. Reece, 239 Md. 649, 660 , 212 A.2d 468, 474 (1965) (“a - 707 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports BRUCE LAVALLEUR, P.C.
Cited · Md. Ct. Spec. App. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Reece, Adm'r v. Reece, 239 Md. 649 , 212 A.2d 468 (1965).
Cited · Md. Ct. Spec. App. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Reece, Adm’r v. Reece, 239 Md. 649 , 212 A.2d 468 (1965).
Cited · Md. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Reece, Adm’r v. Reece, 239 Md. 649 , 212 A. 2d 468 (1965) and cases collected in 2 M.L.E., Appeals, § 353 (1960).
Cited · Md. · signal: see
See Reese v. Reese, 239 Md. 639 , 212 A. 2d 468 (1965), where under this rule the motion for directed verdict was treated as a motion to dismiss. 2 .