Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 165 MICH 183 - Henry v. Hobbs

Henry v. Hobbs’s Empirical Analysis

1911

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
July 1922
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Clark v. Moore · Maxted v. Fowler · Cuddy v. Major · Jackson Sleigh Co. v. Holmes · McKercher v. Curtis

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. ““We do not think, however, that the facts as they appeared in this case would justify an enlargement of the rule. It appears that defendant knew that the apples were to be shipped to South Dakota, but it does not appear that the plaintiff informed him of the fact. The defendant was not informed that the apples had been resold or that the plaintiff desired them for any particular market, or for any special purpose, or that he had contracted to sell them for any particular price. Unless information of this character was imparted by the plaintiff to the defendant at the time the contract was made, the rule of special damages could not be lawfully applied. 2 Mechem on Sales, §§ 1761, 1762; 30 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.), p. 216.””
    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.