Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
276 U.S. 287 · 1928
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 7 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 142 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2015 · most notably Hatzlachh Supply Co. v. United States (1980), United States v. Algoma Lumber Co. (1939)
48 federal appellate · 7 district · 14 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 Baltimore Co v. United States · Merritt v. United States · Sutton v. United States · Tempel v. United States · United States v. Bostwick
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 142 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is immaterial that under the common law in Ohio as applied between private parties, a lessee holding over after the expiration of his lease is held, at the option of the lessor, to be bound for another year, under an agreement implied in law, regardless of his actual intention, * * *. Not having affirmatively continued the lease beyond the actual period of occupancy, the Government cannot, * * * be bound for a longer term. Furthermore, independently of that doctrine, the right here invoked to sue the United States under the Tucker Act on a claim founded on contract — as this is— must rest upon the existence of a contract express or implied in fact, no right of action being given by the Act in cases where, if the transaction were between private parties, recovery could be had upon a contract implied in law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The principle is too well established for further controversy, that, when a tenant for years holds over after the expiration of his term, the law will imply an agreement to hold, or continue the lease, for another year, upon the terms and conditions of the prior lease. It is the duty of the tenant, so soon as the period of his tenancy expires, to peaceably surrender the possession of the demised premises to his landlord, and if he neglects or refuses to do so, the landlord may treat him either as a trespasser, or as a tenant, according as his own option may dictate.”
1 later decision 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.