Miller v. Robertson’s Empirical Analysis
266 U.S. 243 · 1924
Citation profile
339 federal appellate · 63 district · 101 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 715 later decisions (56 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2020 · most notably United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc. (1926), General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp. (1983)
339 federal appellate · 63 district · 101 state decisions — followed in 23 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. v. United States · United States v. North American Transportation & Trading Co. · Central Trust Co. v. Chicago Auditorium Ass'n · United States v. Freeman
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 715 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * One who fails to perform his contract is justly bound to make good all damages that accrue naturally from the breach; and the other party is entitled to be put in as good a position pecuniarily as he would have been by performance of the contract. * * * ””
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The parties intended to make a contract —one to sell, and the other to buy, zinc ore. By plain statements and manifest implications, the seller was bound for a definite time not otherwise to dispose of its ore; the buyers were given an option on the lower grade ore; the seller was bound at all times, when not prevented or delayed by some cause beyond its control, to mine and to ship to the ■buyers the total production of zinc ore of the specified grade; and the buyers were bound to take and pay for all such ore when not prevented or delayed by causes beyond their control as specified in the contract. The quantities of ore to be mined and shipped were not limited to those to be produced by the equipment and methods employed at the time of the execution of the éontraet. The proposed picking plant was to be added, and increased output was expected and bargained for. * * * The writing did not give the seller the option to ship or to refrain from shipping as it saw fit, or leave the quantity to be delivered to its choice. There was no want of consideration or lack of mutuality.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Any person not an enemy or ally.of enemy * * * to whom any debt may be owing from an enemy or ally of enemy whose property or any part thereof shall have been conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid to the Alien Property Custodian * * * may institute a suit * * * in the district court of the United States * * * to establish the * * * debt so claimed * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stasi v. Markham
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.