Dushane v. Benedict’s Empirical Analysis
120 U.S. 630 · 1887
Citation profile
65 federal appellate · 4 district · 84 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 197 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2007 · most notably Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. (1902), Shappirio v. Goldberg (1904)
65 federal appellate · 4 district · 84 state decisions — followed in 25 states
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 Kellogg Bridge Co. v. Hamilton · Schuchardt v. Allens · Thornton v. Wynn · Winder v. Caldwell
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 197 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When a dealer contracts to sell goods which fie deals in, to be applied to a particular purpose, and the buyer has no opportunity to inspect them before delivery, there is an implied warranty that they shall be reasonably fit for that purpose.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The result of the Pennsylvania decisions may be summed up thus: First. Independently of the statute, any matter, either of contract or of tort, immediately connected with the plaintiff’s cause of action (which would seem to include everything that could be set up by way of recoupment, under the law as generally understood and administered in the American courts), mav be set up by way of defense to the action and in abatement of the plaintiff’s damages only. Second. Any matter of contract may be set up by way of counterclaim, under the statute, not only to defeat the plaintiff’s action, in whole or in part, hut also, if the defendant proves that the plaintiff owes him more than he owes the plaintiff, for the purpose of recovering the excess against the plaintiff. Third. No mere matter of tort can be availed of by the defendant under the statute.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““For, although it is true, as a general rule, that unliquidated damages cannot be the subject of set-off, yet it is well settled that a total or partial failure of consideration, acts of nonfeasance or misfeasance immediately connected with the cause of action, or any equitable defense arising out of the same transaction, may be given in evidence in mitigation of damages, or recouped, not strictly by way of defalcation or set-off, but for the purpose of defeating the plaintiff’s action in whole or in part, and to avoid circuity of action.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dietrich v. Ely
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.