Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 35 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from William M. Hanlin v. United States.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | William M. Hanlin v. United States Anchor | green | “thus, the requirements for an implied-in-fact contract are the same as for an express contract; only the nature of the evidence differs.” | 9 |
| 2 | Night Vision Corp. v. United States | green | “the elements of an implied-in-fact contract are the same as those of an oral express contract.” | 7 |
| 3 | Night Vision Corp. v. United States | green | “thus, the requirements for an implied-in-fact contract are the same as for an express contract; only the nature of the evidence differs.” | 7 |
| 4 | City of Cincinnati v. United States | green | “thus, the requirements for an implied-in-fact contract are the same as for an express contract; only the nature of the evidence differs.” | 6 |
| 5 | William M. Hanlin v. United States | green | “the requirements for an implied-in-fact contract are the same as for an express contract; only the nature of the evidence differs.” | 6 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.