Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co.’s Empirical Analysis
282 U.S. 555 · 1931
Citation profile
1,355 federal appellate · 286 district · 353 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3,280 later decisions (77 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989), Dandridge v. Williams (1970)
1,355 federal appellate · 286 district · 353 state decisions — followed in 38 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
reviewedLinen Thread Co. v. Shaw (from First Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Eastman Kodak Co of New York v. Southern Photo Materials Co · Langnes v. Green · Milwaukee and Saint Paul Railway Company v. Kellogg · Delk v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad
Cited together with Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. · Eastman Kodak Co of New York v. Southern Photo Materials Co · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.
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 3,280 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“it would be a perversion of fundamental principles of justice to deny all relief to the injured person, and thereby relieve the wrongdoer from making any amend for his acts.”
206 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“may consider evidence relating to the profits each plaintiff has not received in the past, and will not receive in the future, because of defendant's past unlawful conduct " (emphasis added), and forbade the jury to award purely speculative damages. The jury, per general verdict form not objected to by either party, awarded damages of $7,465,450. 75 Southwestern Bell faces a steep uphill climb in attempting to overturn the jury's damages award. In addressing a challenge to a jury's damages award in an antitrust case, the Supreme Court held that the award "must be allowed to stand, unless all reasonable men, exercising an unprejudiced judgment, would draw an opposite conclusion from the facts.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘The rule that damages, if uncertain, cannot be recovered, applies to their nature, and not to their extent. If the damage is certain, the fact that its extent is uncertain does not prevent a recovery.’ ””
3 later decisions 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.