Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 281 SO2D 10 - Tipper v. Great Lakes Chemical Company

Tipper v. Great Lakes Chemical Company’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
3
states following
May 2023
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably 695 So. 2d 383 - Commerce v. Equity (1997), Michael J. Eskra v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company (1997)

2 federal appellate · 21 state decisions

160197319801990200020102020decided

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 Stuyvesant Corp. v. Waterhouse · 93 So. 2d 584 - Dennis v. Brown · Conveyors Corp. of America v. Industrial Commission

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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “`The basic principle that a person who officiously confers a benefit upon another is not entitled to restitution therefor, and the general rule that a person who without mistake, coercion, or request has unconditionally conferred a benefit upon another is not entitled to restitution, except where the benefit was conferred under circumstances, making such action necessary for the protection of the interests of the other or of a third person, apply to the performance of services for the benefit of another or the performance of a duty of another to a third person. Where it is imperatively necessary for the protection of the interests of third persons or of the public that a duty owed by another should be performed, a stranger who performs it may be entitled to restitution from the other, even though his performance was without the other's knowledge or against his will. Furthermore, a person or his belongings may be in such jeopardy that a stranger is privileged to intervene and to recover for his salvage services.' (Emphasis supplied.) 66 Am.Jur.2d, Restitution and Implied Contracts § 23.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[C]ontracts implied in law, commonly referred to as quasi-contracts, are obligations imposed by law on grounds of justice an equity, and do not rely upon the assent of the contracting parties. This legal fiction was adopted by the law to provide a remedy in instances where one of the contracting parties is unjustly enriched.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “A person who without mistake, coercion or request has unconditionally conferred a benefit upon another is not entitled to restitution, except where the benefit was conferred under circumstances making such action necessary for the protection of the interests of the other person or of third persons.”
    2 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.