Howard L. Makofsky, Jr. v. Raymond C. Cunningham, II’s Empirical Analysis
576 F.2d 1223 · 1978
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 1 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably 390 So. 2d 196 - Cangelosi v. SCHWEGMANN BROS., ETC. (1980), Wilson Company v. Smith International Inc (1978)
36 federal appellate · 1 district · 12 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 United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · Davis v. Alaska · Boston Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States · Walker v. City of Birmingham
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Words are defamatory when, inter alia, they have ‘tendency to deprive [a person] of the benefits of public confidence or injure him in his occupation ... or [have] a natural tendency to injure the person’s reputation.’ ” Madison v. Bolton, supra, 102 So.2d at 437 . When the words themselves have those results, even without considering extrinsic facts and surrounding circumstances, they are defamatory per se. Id., 102 So.2d at 438 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Louisiana courts will not interpret the words of a contract literally when this leads to unreasonable consequences or inequitable or absurd results even when the words used in the contract are fairly explicit”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“whether the performance not rendered by [one party] was the cause 7 of [the other party's] obligation, in which case the dissolution [of the contract] must be granted, or whether the failure in the [one party's] performance is not so grave as to have deterred [the other party] from entering the contract, had he foreseen it, in which case he will be granted damages or a proportional reduction of his own performance”
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.