Lineman v. Schmid’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 121 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 162 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2012 · most notably 17 Cal. 3d 671 - Tripp v. Swoap (1976), 45 Cal. 2d 474 - California Lettuce Growers, Inc. v. Union Sugar Co. (1955)
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 121 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 Cox v. McLaughlin · Hansen v. Covell · Gray v. Bekins · Rice v. Schmid · Gray v. . Central R.R. Co. of New Jersey
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 162 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Every person who is entitled to recover damages certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation, and the right to recover which is vested in him upon a particular day, is entitled also to recover interest thereon from that day, except during such time as the debtor is prevented by law, or by the act of the creditor from paying the debt....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The rule appears to be uniform, whether the case involved contract price or reasonable value, that interest is not allowable when damages cannot be computed except on conflicting evidence, such as in the present case, because of the absence of established or reasonably ascertainable market prices or values. In such cases, since the amount of the damages cannot be resolved except by accord, verdict or judgment, interest prior to judgment, is not allowable.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““A reading of the opinion in the cited Florida case [Sullivan v. McMillan] indicates that in fact the court followed the general rule in determining the seller’s right to interest on the damages due because of the buyer’s failure to take logs under contract. The court said that the evidence was so exact and definite as to the amount of the damages that they could be readily ascertained by simple calculation.””
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.