Coffman v. Crookshank’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 9 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . The measure of damages in such case is the amount which will compensate ‘for all the detriment proximately caused thereby’ whether considered as the breach of an obligation arising from contract (sec. 3300, Civ. Code) or a breach not so arising (sec. 3333, Civ. Code). It hardly needs argument to support the proposition that under the evidence here the proximate damage caused by appellant’s failure to complete his agreement of exchange with Rohrer was the commission Rohrer agreed to pay upon completion; and being familiar with the commission agreements connected therewith appellant must have known that if Rohrer was willing to complete his part of the exchange and the appellant was not, such damage would necessarily result from his failure so to do. The case of Traxler v. Katz, 116 Cal.App. 226, 230 [ 2 P.2d 553 ], is on all-fours with the present ease, and a hearing thereof was refused by the Supreme Court. See, also, Calkins v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 27 F.2d 314 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 109 Cal. App. 2d 456 - Williams v. Krumsiek