Gibbs v. Consolidated Gas Co. of Baltimore’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

59 federal appellate · 18 district · 136 state decisions

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

1. “There are two principal grounds on which the doctrine is founded that a contract in restraint of trade is void as against public policy. One is, the injury to the public by being deprived of the restricted party's industry; the other is, the injury to the party himself by being precluded from pursuing his occupation, and thus being prevented from supporting himself and his family. * * * Innumerable cases, however, might be cited to sustain the proposition that combinations among those engaged in business impressed with a public or quasi public character, which are manifestly prejudicial to the public interest, cannot be upheld. * * * It is also too well settled to admit of doubt that a corporation cannot disable itself by contract from performing the public duties which it has undertaken, and by agreement compel itself to make public accommodation or convenience subservient to its private interests.”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hanover Nat. Bank of New York v. First Nat. Bank of Burlingame · Harrison v. Glucose Sugar Refining Co.

2. “`Public welfare is first considered, and if it be not involved, and the restraint upon one party is not greater than protection to the other [party] requires, the contract may be sustained. The question is whether, under the particular circumstances of the case, and the nature of the particular contract involved in it, the contract is, or is not, unreasonable.' [ Gibbs v. Consolidated Gas Co. (1889) 130 U.S. 396, 409 ( 32 L.Ed. 979, 984 , 9 S.Ct. 553, 557 ).]”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Business Electronics Corp. v. Sharp Electronics Corp. · Harrison v. Glucose Sugar Refining Co.

3. “It is also too well settled to admit of doubt that a corporation cannot disable itself by contract from performing the public duties which it has undertaken, and by agreement compel itself to make public accommodation or convenience subservient to its private interests. 63 "`Where,' says Mr. Justice Miller, delivering the opinion of the court in Thomas v. Railroad Co., 101 U.S. 71 , 83 [25 L.Ed. 950], `a corporation, like a railroad company, has granted to it by charter a franchise intended in large measure to be exercised for the public good, the due performance of those functions being the consideration of the public grant, any contract which disables the corporation from performing those functions, which undertakes without the consent of the state to transfer to others the rights and powers conferred by the charter, and to relieve the grantees of the burden which it imposes, is a violation of the contract with the state, and is void as against public policy.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pennsylvania Water & Power Co. v. Consolidated Gas, Electric Light & Power Co. Of Baltimore (Public Service Commission of Maryland, Intervener)