20 N.J. Super. 43 - Edwards v. Leopoldi’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 14 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently June 2013 · most notably Jersey Central Power & Light Co. v. Local Unions 327, 749, 1289, 1298, 1303, 1309 & 1314 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, (1975), City of East Orange v. Board of Water Commissioners (1963)
3 federal appellate · 14 district · 25 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 Harker v. McKissock · 119 N.J. Eq. 577 - Cameron v. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employes · Kupfersmith v. Delaware Insurance · Superintendent & Trustees of Public Schools v. Bennett · Canadian Industrial Alcohol Co. v. Dunbar Molasses 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“subject to the implied condition that the parties shall be excused in case, before breach, the state of things constituting the fundamental basis of the contract ceases to exist without default of either of the parties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“He that agrees to do an act should do it, unless absolutely impossible. He should provide against contingencies in his contract. Where one of two innocent persons must sustain a loss, the law casts it upon him who has agreed to sustain it, or rather the law leaves it where the agreement of the parties has put it; the law will not insert, for the benefit of one of the parties, by construction, an exception which the parties have not, either by design or neglect, inserted in their engagement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The rule in equity has been that it will not relieve against hardship arising from bad judgment, miscalculation or from a change in circumstances or the result of subsequent events, where these should have been in the contemplation of the parties as possible contingencies when they entered into the contract.”
1 later decision 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.