Mitchell v. Aldrich’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 14 district · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co. (1989), Leigh Furniture and Carpet Co. v. Isom (1982)
4 federal appellate · 14 district · 58 state decisions — followed in 14 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 Cumberland Glass Manufacturing Co. v. De Witt & Co. · Bitterman v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad · Angle v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. · Louis Kamm, Inc. v. Flink · Advance Music Corp. v. American Tobacco 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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[e]xcept for special justification, the law has long recognized liability against one who intentionally intrudes to disrupt an existing contract relation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he remedy afforded is not restricted to definite and enforceable contracts. Protection is appropriate against unjustified interference with reasonable expectancies of profit though the contract is terminable at will or unenforceable against the promi-sor in an adversary proceeding. The added element of a definite contract may be the basis for greater protection but it is not an essential element.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[Ojwnership of the mortgagee in the encumbered property is subject to the mortgagor’s equity and right to redeem .... The mortgagee’s right to defeat the proposed agreement to sell was limited by the nature of security required to protect the mortgage loan. In those instances where it might conclude by fair and honest judgment that the proposed sale would dissipate or jeopardize the security of the loan, a clear right to forbid the sale would exist. But where the integrity of the seller’s obligation would not be affected, the mortgagee has no absolute right to prohibit the sale or disrupt the bargain .... It was for the jury to say whether . . . the defendants established that the occasion of their interference was authorized by the bank and justified by a present danger to the bank’s mortgage security (p. 838, emphasis added).”
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.