Hartsville Oil Mill v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
271 U.S. 43 · 1926
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 20 district · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 137 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2016 · most notably Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks Co. (1931), Blodgett v. Blodgett (1990)
41 federal appellate · 20 district · 37 state decisions — followed in 17 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 Freund v. United States · United States v. Utah, Nevada & California Stage Co. · United States v. L P & J a Smith · Silliman 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 137 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Appellant must prove the probable injury which it would have suffered from the threatened refusal of the government to carry out its contract, and that fear of that loss was the effective cause of its executing the settlement contract. Any inference that the business of manufacturing and distributing cotton seed products would have been disastrously affected, would avail appellant nothing because it does not appear what the consequences to its own business and finances would have'been. “The findings establish that on December 30, 1918, there were in the hands of manufacturers 270,000 bales of linters; but it does not appear what proportion of them, if any, were in the hands of appellant. There is no finding with respect to the amount of cotton seed or cotton seed products' in the hands of the manufacturera. There is no finding with respect to the nature or extent of the commitments of the manufacturers for the purchase of seed, or as to the nature or extent of the loss which appellant would have suffered if on December 30, 1918, the government had refused to go forward with its contract, or that the legal damages for sueh breach of contract would not have been adequate to compensate for its loss. There is no finding that appellant was induced to sign the settlement contract by fear of the consequences of a refusal to sign.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a threat to break a contract does not in itself constitute duress”
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.