Davy v. Crawford’s Empirical Analysis
147 F.2d 574 · 1945
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 10 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Vicki Bagley Realty, Inc. v. Laufer (1984), Order of Ahepa v. Travel Consultants, Inc. (1976)
3 federal appellate · 10 district · 17 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 United States v. Bethlehem Steel Co. · Barnette v. Sayers · 30 App. D.C. 270 - District of Columbia v. Harlan & Hollingsworth Co. · Jaeger v. O'Donoghue
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This court has held that the parties to a contract may agree in advance to a sum certain which shall be forfeited as liquidated damages for breach of the contract without reference to the actual damages found at the time of the breach. But if such an agreement is for a penalty it is void. In order to determine whether or not the provision should be construed as a penalty the contract must be construed as a whole as of the date of its execution. If under the circumstances and expectations of the parties existing at the time of execution it appears that the provision is a reasonable protection against uncertain future litigation the provision will be enforced even though no actual damages were proved as of the date of the breach. If, on the other hand, it appears that the stipulation is designed to make the default of the party against whom it runs more profitable to the other party than performance would be, it will be void as a penalty. Thus, damages stipulated in advance should not be more than those which at the time of the execution of the contract can be reasonably expected from its future breach, and agreements to pay fixed sums plainly without reasonable relation to any probable damage which may follow a breach will not be enforced.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“[o]ther provisions in the contract [that] emphasize its unconscionable and overreaching character,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“covenants [that] are so strictly drawn that the slightest slip on the part of the tenant will cause him to lose his entire equity,”
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.