Freedman v. Seidler’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 8 district · 36 state decisions

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.

1. ““Nor should the lower court have allowed counsel fees as a part of the damages. The general rule is that costs and expenses other than the usual and ordinary court costs are not recoverable in an action for damages, and, in the absence of special circumstances or statutory requirement, counsel fees are not a proper element of damages in an action for breach of contract.” Id. at 47 .”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cohen v. American Home Assurance Co. · St. Luke Evangelical Lutheran Church, Inc. v. Smith

2. ““The record in this case does not disclose such special circumstances as are required to justify the allowance of a fee for legal services, and, in this respect the present case is clearly distinguishable from McGaw v. Acker, Merrall & Condit Co., 111 Md. 153 , 73 Atl. 731 (1909). There the fee allowed was for legal services in a separate litigation against, another party which the wrongful act of the defendant, had required. Here, the fee allowed was for legal services rendered in this litigation. The fact that the landlords impleaded the offending tenant did not require the injured tenant to join him as a third party defendant. Nor did the impleading or joinder of the offending tenant as a third party create such special circumstances as would justify the award of counsel fees.” Id. at 47-48.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cohen v. American Home Assurance Co. · Hess Construction Co. v. Board of Education

3. “The injured tenant insists, and perhaps with some merit in a case such as this where the services of an accountant were necessary to show loss of profits, that she should be reimbursed for the expense of such services. But, in the absence of statutory authority permitting it, we think the charges of the accountant are not recoverable either as an element of damages or as a part of the costs. Compare point (iii) of this opinion, where, with respect to the allowance of counsel fees, it is said that the general rule is that costs and expenses other than actual court costs are not recoverable in an action for damages. We think the same rule is applicable to accountants!”] charges, for we see no distinction in principle between such charges and attorneys!”] fees.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 115 Md. App. 226 - Bresnahan v. Bresnahan