Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2 E.H. Smith 382 - Todd v. . Gamble

2 E.H. Smith 382 - Todd v. . Gamble’s Empirical Analysis

1896

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
13
states following
December 1976
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 4 district · 49 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1976 · most notably Sinclair Refining Co. v. Jenkins Petroleum Process Co. (1933), McAnarney v. Newark Fire Insurance (1928)

4 federal appellate · 4 district · 49 state decisions — followed in 13 states

240189619001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 Parsons v. . Sutton · Windmuller v. Pope · Murray v. Stanton · Dey v. Dox · Gregory v. McDowel

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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““1. Contract of Sale — Breach by Vendor — Measure of Damages. The general rule for the measure of damages, where the vendee sues the vendor for the breach of a contract of sale of merchandise at a fixed price, is the difference between the contract price and the market, value at the time and place of delivery; and, when the vendee can go into the market and buy the •article which the vendor has failed to deliver, this is the only rule. “2. Rule as to Duty of Party Injured by Breach of Contract, to Mitigate Damages. The rule, that the party who suffers from a- breach of contract must so act as to make his damages as small as he reasonably can, is with-, out practical application to a case where the subject-matter of the contract has a market value at the time and place of delivery.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Where two parties have made a contract, which one of them lias broken, the damages which the other party ought to receive, in respect of such breach of contract, should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either arising naturally, i. e., according to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract, as the probable result of the breach of it.””
    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.