Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 43 F.2d 689 - Armstrong Rubber Co. v. Griffith

Armstrong Rubber Co. v. Griffith’s Empirical Analysis

43 F.2d 689 · 1930

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
4
states following
July 1994
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently July 1994

8 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions

701930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Globe Refining Company v. Landa Cotton Oil Company · Moran v. . Standard Oil Co. · William Watts David Sachs · Swain v. . Schieffelin · People Ex Rel. N.Y.C., Etc., R.R. Co. v. . Walsh

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

  1. ““If plaintiff here can recover for loss of good will, it is difficult to see what limits are to be set to the recovery of such damages in any case where defective goods are sold [or where goods are not delivered] and the vendee loses customers. Indeed, if such were the holding, damages which the parties never contemplated would seem to be involved in every contract of sale.” 396 Pa. at 512 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “an uncertain and perilous risk as indemnification against loss through alienation of customers was never contemplated by the parties to the contract.”
    2 later decisions 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.