Herrmann v. Gleason’s Empirical Analysis
126 F.2d 936 · 1942
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently February 1984
9 federal appellate · 1 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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance · 133 Ohio St. 520 - Hummel v. Hummel · Nash v. Towne · Myers v. Hurley Motor 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Applying the law to the facts in this case, appellee retained and used the premises for a period of 20 months, while arbitration proceedings were under way to establish an agreed fair rental therefor. During this period, appellants were deprived of the receipt of rental, and appellee had the use of the premises, as well as the use of the money representing the fair rental value. When the referees determined such rental value, it expressly dated back to the beginning of the period during which the rentals had remained unpaid. Equity and fairness require that appellants have restitution, by way of interest, on the rentals unpaid during that period. Otherwise, appellee would receive the benefit of the value of the use of such money, to the disadvantage of appellants, and his retention thereof would result in inequity and unjust enrichment at their expense. It is our conclusion that appellants are entitled to the interest claimed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * It is said that the action is equitable to the degree that it is based on a moral obligation to make restitution which rests upon a person who has received a benefit which, if retained by him, would result in inequity and injustice. Hummel v. Hummel, 133 Ohio St. 520 , 14 N.E.2d 923 . Under the doctrine of unjust enrichment, a defendant has something of value at the plaintiff’s expense under circumstances which impose a legal duty of restitution. American University v. Forbes, 88 N.H. 17 , 183 A. 860 . See Wilson Cypress Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 5 Cir., 109 F.2d 623 ; Ames’ Lectures on Legal History, pages 149-166; Holdsworth’s History of English Law, Vol, 8, page 92 et seq.; Lawrence on Equity Jurisprudence, § 738.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It further provided that for each ten year period after the initial ten year period, the rental should be agreed upon and, in case the parties failed to agree, it should be determined by referees. Because the parties were unable to agree upon the rental for the third ten year period, referees were appointed to determine the rental to be paid. Twenty months after the last payment of the theretofore agreed upon rentals, the referee's award determined that the fair rental for the period beginning April 1, 1937, and ending March 31, 1947, was”
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.