Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 289 F.2d 389 - Williamson v. Bendix Corp.

Williamson v. Bendix Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

289 F.2d 389 · 1961

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
February 2004
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently February 2004

3 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

3019611970198019902000decided

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 v. General Motors Corp. · Ford Motor Co. v. United States · W. R. Grimshaw Company and National Surety Corporation v. Nevil C. Withrow Co., Inc. · 115 Ind. App. 253 - Daugherty v. Daugherty · Furman v. Gulf Ins.

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

  1. ““The threat to breach a contract of employment, which appears to us to be analogous to the Clinic’s alleged threat to withhold Dr. Raymundo’s wages, which might be aptly termed ‘economic duress,’ has been held not to conform ‘to the Indiana definition of duress: an actual or threatened violence or restraint of a man’s person, contrary to law, to compel him to enter a contract.’ ‘ * * * [T]here is no doubt that the modern tendency of courts of law is to regard any transaction as voidable which the party seeking to avoid was not bound to enter into and which was coerced by fear of a wrongful act by the other party to the transaction. The earlier requirements of common-law duress may be regarded as merged into this broader definition.’ However, although the law may now recognize instrumentalities of duress that were not previously viewed as such, the basic concept of the doctrine is the same; and the ultimate fact to be determined is whether or not the purported victim was deprived of the free exercise of his own uñll. Mere threats, which fall short of subverting the will, cannot constitute duress.””
    2 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.