Bellows v. Porter’s Empirical Analysis
201 F.2d 429 · 1953
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently July 2004
12 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 Gamble v. Queens County Water Co. · Shapleigh Inv. Co. v. Miller · Dunlay v. Avenue M Garage & Repair Co. · Watkins Salt Co. v. Mulkey
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * A mere assurance that a party may act in a certain matter, standing alone, can not be converted into a contract. The rule is stated in Willi-ston on Contracts, Vol. 1, Sec. 26, page 32, as follows: “Since an offer must be a promise, a mere expression of intention and general willingness to do something on the happening of a particular event or in return for something to be received does not amount to an offer.” The applicable principle is stated in Page on Contracts, Vol. 1, 2nd Ed., Sec. 77, as follows: “A declaration of intention to act in a certain way which does not show that the party who makes such declaration promises to act in such a way or intends to incur legal liability obliging him to act in such a way is not an offer which can be accepted so as to make contract.” The expression of an intention to do an act is not an offer to do it. Porter did not promise to do or to refrain from doing anything. He simply forecast what he might do in the future. The transaction is lacking in the elementary essentials of a binding contract. In any event it is not so accurate and certain as to warrant a court of equity to require its specific performance. * * * [i¿f. at 431.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“To warrant the interposition of the court in favor of the minority shareholders ..., where such action is within the corporate powers, a case must be made out which plainly shows that such action is so far opposed to the true interests of the cor poration itself as to lead to the clear inference that no one thus acting could have been influenced by any honest desire to secure such interests, but that he must have acted with an intent to sub-serve some outside purpose, regardless of the consequences to the company, and in a manner inconsistent with its interests.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Herbik v. Rand
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.