Hawkinson v. Johnston’s Empirical Analysis
122 F.2d 724 · 1941
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently March 2011 · most notably Hyman v. Cohen (1954), 68 So. 2d 553 - Kanter v. Safran (1953)
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 16 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 Roehm v. Horst · Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp. · Palmer v. Connecticut Railway & Lighting Co. · New York Life Ins Co v. Viglas · Sagamore Corporation v. Willcutt
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he commercial world has long since learned the desirability of fixing its liabilities and losses as quickly as possible, and the law similarly needs to remind itself that, to be useful, it too must be practical.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The general doctrine of anticipatory breach by repudiation has, however, been clearly recognized in that state [Missouri].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The ways compensatory damages may be proven are many. The injured party is not to be barred from a fair recovery by impossible requirements. The wrongdoer should not be mulcted neither should he be permitted to escape under cover of a demand for nonexistent certainty. * * * "Certainty in the fact of damage is essential. Certainty as to the amount goes no further than to require a basis for a reasoned conclusion. * * * "This Court, recently, in an infringement case was required to appraise the value of opinion evidence as to the part of profits attributable to the use of a pirated play, an obviously elusive fact. No expert thought any greater percentage than ten should be attributed to the play. The lower court allowed twenty so that the award might by no possibility be too small. We approved because `what is required is not mathematical exactness but only a reasonable approximation. That, after all, is a matter of judgment * * *'”
1 later decision 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.