Thompson v. Shell Petroleum Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently February 2000 · most notably Wright & Seaton, Inc. v. Prescott (1982), 245 So. 2d 854 - Flammer v. Patton (1971)
34 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 Marble Company v. Ripley · Express Company v. Railroad Company · Philadelphia Ball Club, Ltd. v. Lajoie · Watford Oil & Gas Co. v. Shipman · Franklin Tel Co v. Harrison
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We find by a review of the authorities that usually the same general rules apply to injunctions against the breach of a contract that apply to specific performance. “ 'An injunction restraining the breach of a contract is a negative specific enforcement of that contract. The jurisdiction of equity to grant such injunction is substantially coincident with its jurisdiction to compel a specific performance. Both are governed by the same doctrines and rules; and it may be stated as a general proposition that wherever the contract is one of a class which will be affirmatively specifically enforced, a court of equity will restrain its breach by injunction, if this is the only practical mode of enforcement which its terms permit.’ ^ “ ‘The tendency of the American Courts has been to limit, rather than to enlarge, the jurisdiction in cases of contracts. English Courts will enjoin the violation of some contracts, even though they can not be specifically enforced. The American Courts with few exceptions refuse to adopt this doctrine.’ Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence, 4th Ed. § 1341, Vo. 4.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"* * * `The legal principle that contracts must be mutual does not mean that in every case each party must have the same remedy for a breach as the other. Mere difference in the right stipulated for does not destroy mutuality of remedy * * * so long as the bounds of reasonableness and fairness are not transgressed'. [32 C.J. Injunctions, § 297.]"”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bacon v. Karr
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.