Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 16 NY 489 - Griffin v. . Colver

Griffin v. . Colver’s Empirical Analysis

1858

Citation profile

229
cited by 229 later decisions
7
cited 7 times by the Supreme Court
40
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 5 district · 182 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 229 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2018 · most notably United States v. Behan (1884), Howard v. Stillwell Bierce Manuf'G Co (1891)

21 federal appellate · 5 district · 182 state decisions — followed in 40 states

50018581860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

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

  1. “[D]amages to be recovered from a breach of contract [must] be shown with certainty, and not left to speculation or conjecture. . . .”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “* * * that the party injured is entitled to recover all his damages, including gains prevented as well as losses sustained; and this rule is subject to but two conditions: The damages must be such as may fairly be supposed to have entered into the contemplation of the parties when they made the contract, that is, must be such as might naturally be expected to follow its violation; and they must be certain, both in their nature and in respect to the cause from which they proceed.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““Independent, however, of all authority, I am satisfied upon principle that an allowance of damages, upon the basis of a calculation of profits, is inadmissible. The rule would be in the highest degree unfavorable to the interests of the community. The subject would be involved in utter uncertainty. The calculation would proceed upon contingencies, and would require a knowledge of foreign markets to an exactness in point of time and value which would sometimes present embarrassing obstacles. Much would depend upon the length of the voyage and the season of the arrival, much upon the vigilance and activity of the master, and much upon the momentary demand. After all, it would be a calculation upon conjectures, and not upon facts.””
    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.