Scully v. US WATS, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
238 F.3d 497 · 2001
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently November 2022 · most notably Lucente v. International Business Machines Corp. (2002), Ware v. Rodale Press, Inc. (2003)
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 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 McGee v. County of Orange · Thompson Coal Co. v. Pike Coal Co. · Geary v. United States Steel Corp. · Reynolds v. Stockton · Drye v. United States
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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he law does not command mathematical preciseness from the evidence in finding damages. Instead, all that is required is that sufficient facts ... be introduced so that a court can arrive at an intelligent estimate without speculation or conjecture.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The law does not command mathematical preciseness from the evidence in finding damages. . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Both the conversion and contract theories presume that a plaintiff has the ability to “cover,” in other words, mitigate damages by protecting prospective profit, by entering the market to purchase the lost shares. However, the theories differ markedly as to when that ability to cover is relevant. The conversion theory extends the cover date to a “reasonable time” into the future, and therefore allows a plaintiff to recover from the defendant some prospective profit that may have accrued after the wrongful act. In contrast, the contract theory, as most strictly employed in the stock context, puts the onus on a plaintiff to cover immediately upon the breach because damages are fixed as of the breach date. Therefore, in the stock context, the contract theory does not allow a plaintiff to recover any prospective profit from the defendant.”
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.