Sun Printing Publishing Association v. William L Moore’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

202 federal appellate · 46 district · 147 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 525 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “-* “The naming a stipulated sum to be paid for the nonperformance of a covenant is conclusive upon the parties in the absence of fraud or mutual mistake. Parties may, in a case where the damages are of an uncertain nature, estimate and agree upon the measure of damages which may be sustained from the breach of an agreement.””

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brooks v. City of Wichita · General Electric Co. v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co.

2. “... [I]t is difficult to conceive how language could more aptly express the absolute obligation, not only to repair and keep in good order to the end of the hiring and to return, but, moreover, to be responsible for any and all loss and damage to the vessel, her fixtures and appointments. These stipulations seem to us to leave no doubt of the absolute liability to return; in other words, of the putting of the risk of damage or loss of the vessel upon the hirer____ [H]aving provided for all repairs, having stipulated absolutely for the return of the vessel in full repair, having put the risk of any and all loss on the hirer, the contract then in express terms fixes the value of the vessel, and makes provision for security to protect against any and all loss or damage sustained by a failure of the hirer to fulfill each and all of the positive obligations which the contract imposed.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. International Feed Products, Inc. v. Alfalfa Products, Inc. · 887 F. Supp. 853 - Dow Chemical Co. v. Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc.

3. ““A court of law possesses no dispensing powers; it cannot inquire whether the parties have acted wisely or rashly, in respect to any stipulation they may have thought proper to introduce into their agreements. If they are competent to contract within the prudential rules the law has fixed as to parties, and there has been no fraud, circumvention, or illegality in the case, the court is bound to enforce the agreement. Men may enter into improvident contracts where the advantage is knowingly and strikingly against them; they may also expend their property upon idle or worthless objects, or give it away if they please without an equivalent, in spite of the powers or interference of the .court; and it is difficult to see why they may not fix for themselves by agreement in advance, a measure of compensation, however extravagant it may be, for a violation of their covenant (they surely may after it has accrued), without the intervention of a court or jury. Can it be an exception to their power to bind themselves by lawful contract? We suppose not; and regarding the intent of the parties, it is not to be doubted but that the sum of $3,000 was fixed upon by them ‘mutually and expressly,’ as they say, ‘as the measure of damages for the violation of the covenant, or any of its terms or conditions.’ If it be said that'the measure is a hard one, it may be replied that the defendants should not have stipulated for it; or, having been thus indiscreet, they should have sought the only exemp”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Oltedale v. United States · Mangelsdorf v. United States