Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 465 F.2d 215 - Golden Dipt Co. v. Systems Engineering & Manufacturing Co.

Golden Dipt Co. v. Systems Engineering & Manufacturing Co.’s Empirical Analysis

465 F.2d 215 · 1972

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 2018

5 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

2019721980199020002010decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1441

Relies on 14 Ill. App. 2d 443 - Brophy v. City of Joliet · 49 Ill. App. 2d 312 - Brook v. Oberlander

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

  1. ““The offeror creates the power of acceptance; and he has full control over the character and extent of the power that he creates. He can prescribe a single and exclusive mode of acceptance. It makes no difference how unreasonable or difficult the prescribed mode may be, if the offeror clearly expresses, in the terms of the communicated offer itself, his intention to exclude all other modes of acceptance. 1A. Corbin, Contracts § 88 at 373 (1963).” 3”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “accept the offer in the exclusive manner it authorized, ... no contract [is] formed between the parties.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “state[s] an exclusive mode by which it could be accepted”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.