Industrial Products Mfg. Co. v. Jewett Lumber Co.’s Empirical Analysis
185 F.2d 866 · 1950
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently September 1987
7 federal appellate · 2 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 Jenkins v. King · 232 Mo. App. 1204 - McClintock v. Skelly Oil Co. · Canister Co. v. National Can Corp. · New England Mutual Life Insurance v. Mannheimer Realty Co.
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is the contention of the defendant that there could not be a new contract between plaintiff and defendant because there was no ‘meeting of the minds’ of the parties, in that one party meant one thing by the words used in the telegram and letter by which the offer to buy the goods was made, while the other party who accepted the offer and manufactured and shipped the goods meant something else. The phrase adopted by the defendant — ‘meeting of the minds’- — -is an ancient and venerable term, and it is widely’ accepted that there must be a ‘meeting of the minds’ if there is to be a contract. The difficulty arises, however, in trying to determine when the minds of the parties have met. Defendant’s position, in effect, is that only the terms in the minds of each of the parties to a contract constitute the terms of the contract, and that the mental processes of each party must concur before a contract can result. But courts are not so limited in their enforcement of contracts. On the contrary, it is what is expressed by the parties that constitutes' the contract which courts enforce. In Longmire v. Diagraph-Bradley Stencil Mach. Corp., Mo.App., 176 S.W. 2d 635 , 646, it is said, ‘Though there must be a meeting of the minds of the parties to constitute a contract, such meeting of the minds is to be determined by the expressed, and not by the secret, intention of the parties.’ “In Canister Co. v. National Can Corp., D.C., 63 F.Supp. 361, 365 , it is well stated: ‘It is true that”
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.