Cincinnati Siemens-Lungren Gas Illuminating Co. v. Western Siemens-Lungren Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

74 federal appellate · 8 district · 35 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 159 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . The Chicago corporation after-wards transferred all its franchises and property, including its rights and interest in this contract, to the plaintiff. The Ohio company carried on its correspondence, and sent its orders for goods to the gas illuminating company, and, though notified of the transfer to the plaintiff, declined, in its letters to recognize such transfer. At the same time it received the goods, and did not return them, and received them knowing that they were sent by the plaintiff. Upon this the defendant invokes the rule laid down in Arkansas Valley Smelt. Co. v. Belden Min. Co., 127 U.S. 379 , 8 S.Ct. 1308 [ 32 L.Ed. 246 ], and insists that the contract was of such a nature that it could not be assigned by the gas illuminating company to plaintiff without the consent of defendant, which consent was positively refused. But that doctrine has no application, under the circumstances of this case. Defendant could not accept these goods from the plaintiff, and then refuse to pay for them. It is immaterial whether there was an assignment from the gas illuminating company to the plaintiff or not, or whether, if there was one, it was ever assented to by the defendant or not. When the defendant ordered the goods from the gas illuminating company, and the plaintiff forwarded the goods upon that order, the defendant might have returned them, and declined to have any dealings with the plaintiff; but it could not accept the goods and use them, and then say it never ord”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Oak Grove Const. Co. v. Jefferson County · Coastal States Gas Producing Co. v. Lower Colorado River Authority

2. ““The profits which would have been realized had the contract been performed, and which have been prevented by its breach, are included in the damages to be recovered in every case where such profits are not open to the objection of uncertainty or of remoteness, or where, from the express or implied terms of the contract itself, or the special circumstances under which it was made, it may be reasonably presumed that they were within the intent and mutual understanding of both parties at the time it was entered into.” Howard v. Stillwell & Bierce Mfg. Co., 139 U. S. 199 , 206, 11 Sup. Ct. 500 , 503, 35 L. Ed. 147 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Anvil Mining Co. v. Humble · Allen v. Field

3. ““The authorities both in the United States and England are agreed that, as a general rule, subject to certain well-established qualifications, the anticipated profits prevented by the breach of a contract are not recoverable in the way of damages for such breach; but in the application of this principle the same uniformity in the decisions does not exist. * * * The grounds upon which the general rule of excluding profits, in estimating damages, rests, are (.1) that in the greater number of cases such expected profits aro too dependent upon numerous, uncertain, and changing contingencies to constitute a definite and trustworthy measure of actual damages; (2) because such loss of profits is ordinarily remote, and not, as a matter of course, the direct and immediate result of the non-fulfillment'of the contract; (3) and because most frequently the engagement to pay such loss of profits, in ease of default in the performance, is not a part of the contract itself, nor can it be implied from its nature and terms.” Citing numerous authorities.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ellerson v. Grove