Baer v. Sleicher’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Having thus disposed of the question of jurisdiction, the case, so far as it is necessary for us to consider it, turns upon the proper contruction of that 'portion of the contract which defines the limits of recovery to one who rightfully cancels the contract, and under its terms completes the job. Under the present contract, he was clearly entitled, in addition to certain damages, to the cost of completing the work. This did not mean the reasonable, but actual, cost. If if appeared from the testimony that he paid in good faith certain sums of money for material and labor to complete the job, he was entitled to recover such sums, whether the jury thought they were reasonable or not. “The contract provided: “ ‘It is further understood and agreed that in case of failure of the party of the first part, the West Side Foundry Company, to complete this contract as specified and agreed upon, that the said party of the second part, Randolph & Baer, shall have the right to recover any and all damages incurred by reason of said failure by the party of the first part, and shall also have the right, to recover whatever sums may be expended by the party of the second part in completing the said contract in excess of the price stipulated, to be paid by the party of the first part for completing the same.’ “Referring to this portion of the contract, the court charged the jury as follows : “ ‘Now, gentlemen, if, under these instructions, you find that the plaintiff was entitled to cancel th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. v. John R. Thompson Co.