Carlson v. Ewing’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently October 2007 · most notably Deus v. Allstate Insurance (1994), Andrepont v. Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal Dist. (1992)
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 21 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
Applies 47 U.S.C. § 151 · 47 U.S.C. § 309 (Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005)
Relies on Glover v. Mayer · Shushan Bros. & Co. v. Hillcoat · Collom v. Bruning · Chaffraix v. John B. Lafitte & Co. · Southport Mill, Ltd. v. Friedrichs
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If, without any serious ground of complaint, a man should send away a laborer whose services he has hired for a certain time, before that time has expired, he shall be bound to pay to such laborer the whole of the salaries which he would have been entitled to receive, had the full term of his services arrived.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“... have repeatedly held that the fact that [an] employee may elsewhere earn money during the unexpired term of the contract has no bearing on his right to recover his salary for the said unexpired term.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Where the object of the contract is any thing but the payment of money, the damages due to the creditor for its breach are the amount of the loss he has sustained, and the profit of which he has been deprived, under the following exceptions and modifications: * * * * * . Although the general rule is, that damages are the amount of the loss the creditor has sustained, or of the gain of which he has been deprived, yet there are cases in which damages may be assessed without calculating altogether on the pecuniary loss, or the privation of pecuniary gain to the party. Where the contract has for its object the gratification of some intellectual enjoyment, whether in religion, morality or taste, or some convenience or other legal gratification, although these are not appreciated in money by the parties, yet damages are due for their breach; a contract for a religious or charitable foundation, a promise of marriage, or an engagement for a work of some of the fine arts, are objects and examples of this rule. In the assessment of damages under this rule, as well as in cases of offenses, quasi offenses, and quasi contracts, much discretion must be left to the judge or jury, while in other cases they have none, but are bound to give such damages under the above rules as will fully indemnify the creditor, whenever the contract has been broken by the fault, negligence, fraud or bad faith of the debtor. (Emphasis supplied)”
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.