Baruch v. Beech Aircraft Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
175 F.2d 1 · 1949
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 6 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently April 1996
8 federal appellate · 6 district · 7 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 Andrew Aikens v. State of Wisconsin No 3 Albert Huegin · Beekman v. Marsters · Keene Lumber Co. v. Leventhal · Baruch v. Beech Aircraft Corp. · Russell v. Bovard
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"We need not probe the outer limits of the rule, for controlling Kansas decisions have set the pattern for this case by adopting the Restatement rule giving a right of action against `one who, without a privilege to do so, induces or otherwise purposely causes a third person not to (a) perform a contract with another . .' Restatement of Torts, Sec. 766. See Nulty v. Hart-Bradshaw Lbr. & Grain Co., 116 Kan. 446 , 227 P.2d 254 ; Russell v. Bovard, 153 Kan. 729 , 113 P.2d 1064, 1069 ; Restatement of Agency, Sec. 312; Restatement of Torts, Sec. 876. It is thus plain that Kansas has not embraced mere negligent acts of invasion as a basis for liability. Intent or purpose is an essential element of the cause of action under Kansas law. Indeed, the appellant agrees that to establish her cause of action, she must show: (1) the existence of the contract between Horton and herself; (2) knowledge of that contract on the part of Beech; (3) an intentional interference with the known contract right without legal justification; and (4) resulting damages to her. . . ."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The trial court properly treated the relationship between Baruch [owner of a plane destroyed in a crash while operated by Baruch’s pilot, who had been drinking] and Beech [the defendant airport] as bailor and bailee, which required the surrender of the possession of the plane upon Baruch’s agent’s [the pilot’s] demand, and the use of its airport to take it off. . . .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.