Curtiss v. Bachman’s Empirical Analysis
1895
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently June 1971 · most notably LeFave v. Dimond (1956), 100 Cal. App. 658 - Moore v. Maryland Casualty Co. (1929)
37 state decisions
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 Lambert v. Haskell · Hicks v. Michael · Andrews v. . the Glenville Woolen Co. · Mitchell v. Hawley · San Diego Water Co. v. Pac. Coast S.S. 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The damages for which the plaintiff seeks to recover herein, and of which he gave evidence at the trial, consisted of moneys which he had paid to his attorneys, the costs incurred in the action of Gilman v. Curtis, supra [ 66 Cal. 116 ( 4 P. 1094 )] [the injunction action], and the loss of time and injury to his business necessitated by the suit. We are of the opinion, however, that neither of these elements of damage is within the terms of the obligation of the defendants, and that the plaintiff failed to establish any right of action against them. The liability of the defendants is measured by the terms of their contract, and in the present action is limited to the damages that the plaintiff might sustain 'by reason of the said injunction.' Whatever expenses he was subjected to by reason of the suit, as distinguished from those sustained by reason of the injunction, are not damages within this contract of the defendants; and, as it rested upon the plaintiff to establish a cause of action against them, it was necessary for him to show, not only that he had sustained damage, but that the damage which he had sustained was caused solely by reason of the injunction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. LeFave v. Dimond
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.