Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 285 F.2d 438 - Neely v. United States

Neely v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

285 F.2d 438 · 1961

Citation profile

71
cited by 71 later decisions
September 2017
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Glendale Federal Bank, FSB v. United States (2001), Sun Oil Co. v. United States (1978)

14 federal appellate · 1 district ·

430196119701980199020002010decided

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 United States & Interstate Commerce Commission v. Abilene & Southern Railway Co. · Chain Belt Co. v. United States · Cuiffo 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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[P]rofits are uncertain; they depend on so many contingencies, especially in a new enterprise, that it is, in most cases, impossible to say that the breach was the proximate cause of the loss of them, or that a profit would have been realized, in any event; nor is there any basis to determine what they might have amounted to. This is especially true where the breach occurred before operations had begun. j¡í ifc * ‡ jfs ^ Suffice it to say that almost always, in the case of a new venture, the fact that there would have been a profit, had there been no breach, is too shrouded in uncertainty for loss of anticipated profits to form a reliable measure of the damages suffered.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “the market value of plaintiffs lease was $22,000, which was the commuted value of what plaintiff sold it for [under the assignment]; but plaintiff might have been able to secure a higher price for it, if the prohibition against strip-mining had not been imposed. We do not think plaintiffs damages are limited to this amount.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[l]ost profits are a recognized measure of damages where their loss is the proximate result of the breach and the fact that there would have been a profit is definitely established, and there is some basis on which a reasonable estimate of the amount of the profit can be made.”
    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.