Bell v. Speed Queen’s Empirical Analysis
407 F.2d 1022 · 1969
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently March 1990
11 federal appellate · 3 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 United States v. Colgate & Co. · Eastman Kodak Co of New York v. Southern Photo Materials Co · Miller, Etc. v. Ortman, Etc. · Knight & Jillson Co. v. Miller · 114 Ind. App. 641 - International Shoe Co. v. Lacy
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Plaintiff cannot recover for breach of contract. First, there is a question as to whether defendant ever contracted with this plaintiff or whether the contract could be validly assigned without the express consent of defendant. But even assuming that there was a valid assignment of the con tract, Indiana law provides that a contract providing for continuing performance and which has no termination date, or which provides that it will last indefinitely, is terminable at will by either party. In the recent case of Monon R.R. v. New York Central R.R. [ 10 Ind. Dec. 644 ], 227 N. E. 2d 450, 456 , 141 Ind. App. 277 (1967) involving the termination of the agreement between two railroads to maintain a joint station, the court said: ‘There being no conflict in the evidence, we are of the opinion that under the law applicable to contracts in our state, a contract which contains no specific termination date is terminable by the parties thereto at will.’ There, the defendant gave the plaintiff only thirty days notice of a termination of a contract which had lasted more than fifty years. In Miller v. Ortman (1956), 235 Ind. 641 , 136 N. E. 2d 17, 33 , dealing with a distribution contract, the court said: ‘And, as to the termination of appellant’s contract as distributor for the “Corporation,” it is admitted that there was no formal agreement relative thereto between the “Corporation” and “Midwest” and that any oral agreement between the parties was indefinite as to time and territory. ‘”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Indiana law provides that a contract providing for continuing performance and which has no termination date, or which provides that it will last indefinitely, is terminable at will by either party. * * * * * % [Even if the contract had expressly provided for an indefinite duration, or for its perpetual continuance, it would have been terminable at will by either party.”
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.