6 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 25 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 Subaru of America, Inc. v. David McDavid Nissan, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Subaru of America, Inc. v. David McDavid Nissan, Inc. Anchor | green | “promissory estoppel doctrine presumes no contract exists” | 5 |
| 2 | Sun Oil Co. (Delaware) v. Madeley | green | “the damages recoverable by a party claiming estoppel are not measured by the profits that such party's reliance led him to expect, but instead are limited to the amount necessary to compensate that party for a loss already suffered.” | 5 |
| 3 | Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc. | green | “experience alone may provide a sufficient basis for an expert's testimony” | 5 |
| 4 | In Re Weekley Homes, L.P. | green | “we have long recognized . . . the defensive theory of promissory estoppel.” | 4 |
| 5 | Borneman v. Steak & Ale of Texas, Inc. | green | “as a general rule, when a statutory cause of action is submitted, the charge should 'track the language of the provision as closely as possible.” | 3 |
| 6 | Fretz Construction Co. v. Southern National Bank of Houston | green | “damages recoverable in a case of promissory estoppel are not the profit that the promisee expected, but only the amount necessary to restore him to the position he would have been in had he not acted in reliance on the promise.” | 3 |
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.