Simon v. Electrospace Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
54 federal appellate · 6 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 170 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Lucente v. International Business Machines Corp. (2002), Legros v. Tarr (1989)
54 federal appellate · 6 district · 10 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 Sibbald v. . the Bethlehem Iron Company · Wright v. . Bank of the Metropolis · Hoppe v. . Russo-Asiatic Bank · Parker v. Hoppe · Mayer v. . Monzo
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 170 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Measuring these damages at the time of breach also has the support of other jurisdictions. The New York Court of Appeals, after noting that “[t]he proper measure of damages for breach of contract is determined by the loss sustained or gain prevented at the time and place of breach,” held that “[t]he rule is precisely the same when the breach of contract is nondelivery of shares of stock.” As the Second Circuit has reasoned, “[m]easuring contract damages by the value of the item at the time of the breach is eminently sensible and actually takes expected lost future profits into account. The value of assets for which there is a market is the discounted value of the stream of future income that the assets are expected to produce.” For this reason, New York courts have “explicitly upheld damage awards based on what ‘knowledgeable investors anticipated the future conditions and performance would be at the time of the breach’ and have rejected awards based on what ‘the actual economic conditions and performance’ were in light of hindsight.” Thus, the “damage award resulting from a breach of an agreement to purchase securities is the difference between the contract price and the fair market value of the asset at the time of breach, not the difference between the contract price and the value of the shares sometime subsequent to the breach.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The rule is precisely the same when the breach of contract is nondelivery of shares of stock.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The rule is well-established in brokerage cases ... that interference with the opportunity of a broker to complete his services does not bar his right to commissions ____ The rule is but a species of a more general doctrine that a promisor is not discharged by the nonperformance of a condition precedent or return promise imposed on the promisee but which the promisor prevented or hindered.”
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.