Jaquith v. Hudson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 51 state decisions

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

1. ““But, secondly, there are great numbers of cases, where, from the nature of the contract and the subject-matter of the stipulation, for the breach of which the sum is provided, it is apparent to the court that the actual damages for a breach are uncertain in their nature, difficult to be ascertained, or impossible to be estimated with certainty, by reference to any pecuniary standard, and where the parties themselves are more intimately acquainted with all the peculiar circumstances, and therefore better able to compute the actual or probable damages, than courts or juries, from any evidence which can be brought before them. In all such cases, the law permits the parties to ascertain for themselves, and to provide in the contract itself, the amount of the damages which shall be paid for the breach. In permitting this, the law does not lose sight of the principle of compensation, which is the law of the contract, but merely adopts the computation or estimate of the damages made by the parties, as being the best and most' certain mode of ascertaining the actual damage, or what sum will amount to a just compensation. The reason, therefore, for allowing the parties to ascertain for themselves the damages in this class of cases, is the same which denies the right in the former class of cases: viz., the courts adopt the best and most practicable mode of ascertaining the sum which will produce just compensation.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jewett v. Detroit Edison Co. · Jones v. Stainton

2. ““But the court will apply this principle, and disregard the express stipulation of parties, only in those cases where it is obvious from the contract before them, and the whole subject-matter, that the principle of compensation has been disregarded, and that to carry out the express stipulation of the parties, would violate this principle, which alone the court recognizes as the law of the contract. “The violation, or disregard of this principle of compensation, may appear to the court in various ways—from the contract, the sum mentioned, and the subject-matter. * * * (5 Mich. ) ‘.'The foregoing remarks are all to be confined to that class of cases where it was clear, from the sum mentioned and the subject-matter, that the principle of compensation had been disregarded.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Board of Commerce v. Security Trust Co. · Superior Steel Spring Co. v. New Era Spring & Specialty Co.

3. ““The real question in this class of cases will be found to be, not what the parties intended, but whether the sum is, 'm fact, m the nature of a penalty; and this is to be determined by the magnitude of the sum, in connection with the subject-matter, and not at all by the words or the understanding of the parties. The intention of the parties cannot alter it. ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Davidow v. Wadsworth Manfg. Co. · Elzey v. City of Winterset