Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 121 U.S. 264 - Hinckley v. Pittsburgh Bessemer Steel Co.

Hinckley v. Pittsburgh Bessemer Steel Co.’s Empirical Analysis

121 U.S. 264 · 1887

Citation profile

183
cited by 183 later decisions
9
cited 9 times by the Supreme Court
28
states following
August 2005
most recently cited

75 federal appellate · 6 district · 71 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 183 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2005 · most notably Roehm v. Horst (1900), Guerini Stone Co. v. P. J. Carlin Construction Co. (1916)

75 federal appellate · 6 district · 71 state decisions — followed in 28 states

4601887189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 United States v. Behan · The Philadelphia Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad Company v. Sebre Howard · Martinton v. Fairbanks · Hopkins v. Lee

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 183 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The defendant agreed ip writing to purchase from the plaintiff rails to be rolled by the latter, ‘and to be drilled as may be directed,’ and to pay for them $58 per ton. He refused to'give directions for drilling, and, at his request, the plaintiff delayed rolling any of the rails until after the time prescribed for their delivery,' and then the defendant advised the plaintiff that he should decline to take any rails under the contract. Held, (1) the defendant was liable in damages for the breach of the contract; (2) the plaintiff was not bound to roll the rails and tender them to the defendant; (3) the proper rule of damages was the difference between the cost per ton of making and delivering the rails and the $58.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Wherever profits are spoken of as not a subject of damages, it will be found that something contingent upon future bargains, or speculations, or states of the market, are referred to, and not the difference between the agreed price of something contracted for and its ascertainable value or cost.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.