Ingram-Day Lumber Co. v. Schultz’s Empirical Analysis
45 F.2d 359 · 1930
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
December 1940
most recently cited
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Relies on Stanley v. Supervisors of Albany · Dingley v. Oler · Neely v. Henkel (No. 2) · Michael Dooley v. James Pease · Hathaway v. First Nat Bank of Cambridge
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In this respect we hold the contract was ambiguous and uncertain, and that the trial court very properly received in evidence previous and contemporary transactions and facts in order to determine the intention of the parties as to the dates and amounts of shipments.””
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.