Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 332 Pa. 529 - Cameron, to Use v. Eynon

Cameron, to Use v. Eynon’s Empirical Analysis

1938

Citation profile

74
cited by 74 later decisions
1
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Schott v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. (1969), 337 Pa. Super. 58 - Ingrassia Const. Co., Inc. v. Walsh (1984)

7 federal appellate · 40 state decisions

170193819401950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

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

  1. ““ * * * The distinction between express and implied contracts on the one hand and quasi-contracts on the other is basic. It has been succinctly stated by Mr. Justice Stern in Cameron v. Eynon, 332 Pa. 529, 532 , 3 A.2d 423, 424 , thus: ‘A quasi contract arises where the law imposes a duty upon a person, not because of any express or implied promise on his part to perform it, but even in spite of any intention he might have to the contrary. A quasi contract, which is a fictional contract, is not to be confused with a contract implied in fact, which is an actual contract, and which arises where the parties agree upon the obligations to be incurred, but their intention, instead of being expressed in words, is inferred from their acts in the light of the surrounding circumstances.’ ””
    3 later decisions 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.