Rauser v. LTV Electrosystems, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
437 F.2d 800 · 1971
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2001 · most notably Afram Export Corporation v. Metallurgiki Halyps Sa (1985), Simmons, Inc. v. Pinkerton's, Inc. (1985)
12 federal appellate · 9 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 New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Roper · Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Ritchey · Dunham v. Jones · Roder v. Niles
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Finally, defendant asserts that the district court erred in including interest as an element of damages. The general rule is that interest is recoverable at the statutory rate for breach of a contract to pay a definite sum of money or to render performance the value of which may be ascertained in money. Restatement of Contracts, § 337 (a). It has been held in Indiana that the question is not whether the damages are liquidated but whether they are ascertainable in accordance with fixed rules of evidence and accepted standards of valuation. New York, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Roper (1911), 176 Ind. 497, 507 , 96 N. E. 468, 472 . See also Restatement of Contracts, § 337 (a), Comment g. Interest is not includable where damages are unliquidated and cannot be ascertained until judgment. Dunham v. Jones (1915), 184 Ind. 46, 52 , 110 N. E. 203, 205 , overruled as to another holding, Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Ritchey, 188 Ind. 157, 164-165 , 119 N. E. 368 , 484.” (our emphasis).”
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.