Percoff v. Solomon’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 73 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently July 2013 · most notably Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Blumberg (1964), Mercury Investment Co. v. F.W. Woolworth Co. (1985)
4 federal appellate · 73 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 55 So. 2d 741 - US Casualty Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co. · 45 Cal. App. 2d 141 - Cousins Investment Co. v. Hastings Clothing Co. · Oden v. King · Alabama State Milk Control Board v. Graham · Wood v. Estes
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““‘Summarized, therefore, the rules dedúcible from the foregoing authorities controlling the exercise of judicial authority to insert implied covenants may be stated as follows: (1) The implication must arise- from the language used or it must be indispensable to effectuate the intention of the parties; (2) it must appear, from the language used that it was so clearly within the contemplation of the parties that they deemed it unnecessary to express it; (3) implied covenants can only be justified on the grounds of legal necessity; (4) a promise can be implied only where it can be rightfully assumed that it would have been made if attention had been called to it; (5) there can be no implied covenant where the subj ect is completely covered by the contract. Keeping.in mind the above.rules, we find nothing in the language employed in-either the original-lease or the modification, nor in any . of the circumstances attending the execution thereof, to support the conclusion that there was an implied covenant requiring, defendant to remain in business in the demised premises until the -expiration of the term. An examination of the amendatory agreement shows -that its terms are clear, definite, and unambiguous ; that - it was skillfully drawn, and executed only after full discussion and mature deliberation. * * * “ 'Nor is there anything in the nature of the transaction to justify a finding that the implied covenant was indispensable to effectuate the intention of the parties, nor can”
4 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.