Texas & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Rust’s Empirical Analysis
19 F. 239 · 1883
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 1966
5 federal appellate ·
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 Dermott v. Jones · Manufacturing Company v. United States
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A provision, in a contract to build a railroad bridge that, in case of non-completion of the bridge or providing a crossing for trains by a given date, the sum óf $1,000 per week should be deducted from the contract price of the bridge for the time its completion or provision for crossing trains is delayed beyond that date, is a stipulation for liquidated damages.” “In such cases, if the contractors act in good faith, and the delay results from causes beyond their control, they will not be liable for damages in excess of the stipulated amount.” “The fact that the contractors were retarded in the work by high water, sickness of hands, and sunken logs encountered in sinking piers, does not excuse them from performance of their contract. They assumed their risks when they executed the contract, without a provision exempting them from the consequences of such casualties.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““If the plaintiffs directed the defendants to make additions or changes, or do work on the bridge not covered by the contract, and which ' would require longer time to complete the bridge, and this fact was known to both parties, then it must be implied that both parties consented to such an extension of time as was necessary or reasonable for making such additions or changes,. but no more. Manufg. Co. v. U. S., 17 Wall. 592 [ 21 L. Ed. 715 ]. If such orders for additions or changes in the bridge were given by the plaintiff, and the defendants with good faith and with reasonable diligence and adequate force and appliances, performed such extra work, then the time required to do the same must be added to the contract time allowed for completion of the bridge.””
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.