Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 13 MASSLRPTR 190 - Marx v. Globe Newspaper Co.

Marx v. Globe Newspaper Co.’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
November 2002
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 17 U.S.C. § 201 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)

Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Anthony's Pier Four, Inc. v. HBC ASSOCIATES · Nader v. Citron · Fortune v. National Cash Register Co. · Yates v. Gober

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

  1. “The effective use of bad faith to escape performance on the original contract terms is barred, and the extortion' of a “modification” without legitimate commercial reason is ineffective as a violation of the duty of good faith. Nor can a mere technical consideration support a modification made in bad faith. The test of “good faith” between merchants or as against merchants includes “observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in the trade” (Section 2-103) and may in some situations require an objectively demonstrable reason for seeking a modification. But such matters as a market shift which makes performance come to involve a loss may provide such a reason even though there is no such unforeseen difficulty as would make out a legal excuse from performance under Sections 2-615 and 2-616.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]his Court finds that, depending on the circumstances, the modification of a contract may be in bad faith when it is procured through an ultimatum in which a company threatens an independent contractor, even an independent contractor who is terminable at-will, with termination unless that independent contractor agrees to waive any claim to a benefit the independent contractor has earned or is otherwise entitled to receive through its past service on behalf of that company.”
    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.