Mauldin v. Sheffer’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Bradley Center, Inc. v. Wessner (1982), Flintkote Company v. Dravo Corporation B F (1982)
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 44 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 100 Ga. App. 434 - Leonard v. Firemen's Insurance · City & Suburban Railway v. Brauss · 88 Ga. App. 252 - Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Newman · 27 Ga. App. 494 - Davis v. Carter · Housing Authority v. Ayers
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n order to maintain an action ex delicto because of a breach of duty growing out of a contractual relation the breach must be shown to have been a breach of duty imposed by law and not merely the breach of duty imposed by the contract itself. . . . “Duty imposed by law” as used in this context means, of course, either a duty imposed by a valid statutory enactment of the legislature or a duty imposed by a recognized common law principle declared in the reported decisions of the appellate courts of this State or jurisdiction involved.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]n order to maintain an action ex delicto because of a breach of duty growing out of a contractual relation the breach must be shown to have been a breach of a duty imposed by law and not merely the breach of a duty imposed by the contract itself. [Cits.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Generally, a mere breach of a valid contract amounting to no more than a failure to perform in accordance with its terms does not constitute a tort or authorize the aggrieved party to elect whether he will proceed ex contractu or ex delecti.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.