Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 36 F.1d 414 - Campbell Printing-Press Co. v. Thorp

Campbell Printing-Press Co. v. Thorp’s Empirical Analysis

36 F. 414 · 1888

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
states following
October 1960
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently October 1960

3 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

20188818901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 Duplex Safety Boiler Co. v. . Garden · City of Brooklyn v. . Brooklyn City R.R. Co. · Brown v. Foster · Zaleski v. Clark · Walter A. Wood Reaping & Mowing Machine Co. v. Smith

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

  1. ““The true doctrine is expressed in McCarren v. McNulty, 7 Gray [Mass.] 139, 141: ‘It may be that the plaintiff was injudicious or indiscreet in undertaking to labor and furnish materials for a compensation, the payment of which was made dependent upon a contingency so hazardous or doubtful as the approval or satisfaction of a party particularly in interest. But of that he was the sole judge. Against the consequences resulting from his own bargain the law can afford him no relief; having voluntarily assumed the obligations and risk of tlie contract, Ms legal rights are to be ascertained and determined solely‘according to its provisions.’ “Other cases extend the same doctrine to contracts for the pertormance of labor, or for the support of another to Ms satisfaction. In such case, the employer may be wholly dissatisfied with the character of the service rendered, or the beneficiary made exceedingly uncomfortable by his surroundings, without in' either case being able to assign what the law would recognize as a sufficient reason for his dissatisfaction. It makes him, however, the sole judge of the reasonableness of his own discontent.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We know of no reason of public policy which prevents parties from contracting that the decision of one or the other shall be conclusive.”
    1 later decision 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.