Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 464 F.2d 267 - Chandler Leasing Division v. Florida-Vanderbilt Development Corporation

Chandler Leasing Division v. Florida-Vanderbilt Development Corporation’s Empirical Analysis

464 F.2d 267 · 1972

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
4
states following
November 2014
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently November 2014

3 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

8019721980199020002010decided

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 Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Florida Citrus Exposition, Inc. v. Hungerford Construction Co. · Lawrence v. City of Chicago · Pembroke v. Caudill · Hyman v. Cohen

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

  1. “"[ Cutler Gate and Monsalvatge ] cannot be interpreted to lay down the per se rule that irrespective of whatever contractual damage provision the parties have agreed upon, only rentals in default [can be] recovered. Such a rule would not only conflict with the right of contracting parties to obligate themselves as they wish, but it would also be inconsonant with sound reason. Under so absolute a rule, lessees could breach lease agreements with impunity knowing that they would be liable only for the payments in default, and lessors on the other hand would never know when the property would be returned and in what condition. Such intolerable conditions would so seriously impair the commercial viability and efficacy of lease transactions that they would forestall or inhibit the negotiation of commercially valuable lease agreements." 464 F.2d at 270 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"The percentage remained inflexible throughout the years of the lease and in no part served as a reasonable forecast of just compensation, which is the hallmark for legal damages under Florida Law. Pembroke v. Caudill, 160 Fla. 948 , 37 So.2d 538 , 6 A.L.R.2d 1395 (1948); Hungerford Const. Co. v. Florida Citrus Exposition, 410 F.2d 1229 (5 Cir.), cert. denied 396 U.S. 928 , 90 S.Ct. 263 , 24 L.Ed.2d 226 (1969); 1 Restatement of Contracts § 339(1) (1932). For example, consider how unconscionable such a flat exaction would be in the latter months of the lease." (Emphasis theirs)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"[L]essor may take possession of any or all of said equipment, wherever it may be located without demand or notice, without any court order of process of law, and without incurring any liability to lessee for any damages occasioned by such taking of possession. Lessor shall make such efforts as are reasonable in the circumstances, at its option either to sell any or all of the terminated equipment at public or private cash or credit sale, or to re-let the same. .. ." Id at 269”
    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.