Guerini Stone Co. v. P. J. Carlin Construction Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

129 federal appellate · 18 district · 54 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 291 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “a reference by the contracting parties to an extraneous writing for a particular purpose makes it a part of their agreement only for the purpose specified.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. SCHULL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. Koenig · Town of Cheswold v. Central Delaware Business Park

2. “If you find he [meaning plaintiff] was justified in terminating the contract as he did on May 22 upon the principles above given you, you can consider the reasonable expenditures incurred by the plaintiff, the unavoidable losses incident to stoppage, .the amount of work actually performed, the amount plaintiff was actually entitled to by reason of such work at. the contract price, and the profits which plaintiff -could have made if allowed to com- . píete the. work under the contract. So the different items that you may, if you come to the question, take into account, are the outlays less the material on hand, the amount of work actually performed and the profits, if you find there were any which were not speculative. The measure of profits is the contract price less what is shown to you as the expense of carrying out the contract, if that is shown to you to your satisfaction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Guerini Stone Co. v. P. J. Carlin Construction Co.

3. ““Exceptions were taken to tbe refusal of certain other instructions requested by plaintiff with tbe object of basing a recovery of damages, including profits, upon tbe ground of plaintiff having been prevented by defendant’s acts from performing its contract within tbe time specified or a reasonable extension thereof, or on tbe ground that defendant’s refusal to make payments and other breaches of contract were so unreasonable and inexcusable as to indicate an inability or unwillingness on its part to carry out tbe contract or to amount to a refusal- to perform it in tbe future, sue % as to justify plaintiff in stopping worlc. But these exceptions have not been fully argued, and tbe requests are perhaps wanting in accuracy; hence we pass them without consideration.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. P. J. Carlin Const. Co. v. Guerini Stone Co.