Erswell v. Ford’s Empirical Analysis
1922
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably Barber v. Stephenson (1953), 431 So. 2d 515 - Purcell Co., Inc. v. Spriggs Enterprises, Inc. (1983)
8 federal appellate · 36 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 United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Millonas · Smith v. Sharpe · Sayre v. Wilson & Ingram · Nixon v. Clear Creek Lumber Co. · Chambers & Marshall v. Baldwin
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.
“As to the first proposition, we approve the following statement of the rule: "An action cannot in general be maintained for inducing a third person to break his contract with the plaintiff; the consequence after all being only a broken contract for which the party to the contract may have his remedy by suing upon it." Sleeper v. Baker, 22 N.D. 386 , 134 N.W. 716 , 39 L.R.A. (N.S.) 864, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 1189, where the foregoing statement of the rule is adopted after a review of the cases. This question is well discussed also in Chambers v. Baldwin, 91 Ky. 121 , 15 S.W. 57 , 11 L.R.A. 545 , 34 Am.St.Rep. 165 , where two exceptions are noted: (1) One was provided by the English Statute of Laborers, applying to cases in which servants were enticed to leave their employment, a substantial counterpart of which is found in our statute (sections 6849 and 6850 of the Code); (2) the other arises in cases where a party has been procured against his will or contrary to his purpose, by coercion or fraud, to break his contract with another. This, in effect, is the rule announced in U.S. Fidelity Co. v. Millonas, 206 Ala. 147 , 89 South. 732 , and, we apprehend, is the rule adopted by the Court of Appeals in McCluskey v. Steele, 18 Ala.App. 31 , 88 South. 367 , where quite a number of the adjudications on this subject are cited.”
2 later decisions 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.