Jackson v. Sam Finley, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
366 F.2d 148 · 1966
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently June 2013 · most notably Mid-Continent Telephone Corp. v. Home Telephone Co. (1970), Stool v. J. C. Penney Co. (1968)
15 federal appellate · 4 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1652 (Rules of Decision Act)
Relies on Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · 124 Cal. App. 2d 71 - Hensler v. City of Los Angeles · Terre Haute Cooperage, Inc. v. Branscome · Wall v. Wall Et Ux.
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We do not consider these authorities controlling here. Mississippi contract law requires that where contractual language is unambiguous, the contract read literally must be enforced. The contractual right of the city to make extensive changes in the hot planing project was in no way ambiguous. Many of the cases cited for the appellant’s proposition have contained provisions which expressly limited or restricted the City’s authority to make such changes, [citations omitted]. Where, on the other hand, the contractual right to make omissions is unambiguous and unrestricted, there is authority for reading the language literally, ... In light of the unambiguous language used in the contract, ... and the objective emphasis of Mississippi contract law, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the contractual language was unambiguous and contained a legally binding agreement between the parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Mississippi case law makes clear that a “meeting of the minds” is not required for a valid contractual provision, and that if the contractual language unambiguously indicates an agreement, the fact that this may not correspond to the actual understanding of the parties will not justify the admission of parol evidence to modify the language. Landry v. Moody Grishman Agency, Inc. [1965], [ 254 Miss. 363 ] 181 So.2d 134 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“must not be read literally but must be held to be circumscribed by the intentions of the parties at the time of contracting. Thus, it is asserted, the parties intended that the omission clause authorize only changes which would not completely alter the contemplated scope of the work.”
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.