Garcia v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co.’s Empirical Analysis
315 F.2d 166 · 1963
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently February 2011
13 federal appellate · 5 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 Continental Ore Company v. Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation · Globe Refining Company v. Landa Cotton Oil Company · Palmer v. Connecticut Railway & Lighting Co. · Tyler v. Dowell, Inc. · United States v. Griffith, Gornall & Carman, Inc.
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In cases like this, the injured party may ‘recover damages for inconvenience, annoyance, discomfort and business interference without proving specifically the amount of pecuniary loss resulting therefrom.’ Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Hinchcliffe, 10 Cir., 204 F.2d 381 , 382. Once the injured party proves the fact of his damages with reasonable certainty, ‘recovery will not be denied because the damages are difficult of ascertainment.’ Frank Bond and Son, Inc. v. Reserve Minerals Corp., 10 Cir., [ 65 N.M. 257 ,] 335 P.2d 858 , citing Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Hinchcliffe, supra, and quoting from Stern v. Dunlap, 10 Cir., 228 F.2d 939 , 943, where we said, ‘It is enough if the evidence adduced is sufficient to enable the court or jury, as the case may be, to make a fair and reasonable approximation (of the damages).’ And see also United States v. Griffith, Gornall & Carman, Inc., 10 Cir., 210 F.2d 11 ; Palmer v. Connecticut Ry. & Lighting Co., 311 U.S. 544 , 61 S.Ct. 379 , 85 L.Ed. 336 ; Gould v. Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co., 6 Utah 2d 187 , 309 P.2d 802 ; Corbin on Contracts, Vol. 5, Sec. 1020. But, the claimant most assuredly must establish his loss ‘by the most accurate basis possible under the circumstances. He must produce the best evidence reasonably obtained.’ Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Hinchcliffe, supra; Restatement of Contracts, Sec. 331(1). Loss of profits, where reasonably ascertainable, have be”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. DeVries v. Starr · Newman v. Nelson“"It was incumbent upon [the dentist] to prove not only that the Telephone Company negligently omitted his listing from the classified section of the directory, but that he suffered compensatory damages as a foreseeable consequence of such omission. [Citing authorities]. It seems entirely reasonable to foresee that the omission of the Doctor's name from the classified section of the directory would result in pecuniary loss. For, the very purpose of the listing is to facilitate the Doctor's contacts and thus enhance his professional practice. Indeed, no other result was intended or contemplated."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“recovery will not be denied because the damages are difficult of ascertainment.”
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.