Murphy v. O'Donnell’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently June 2002
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 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 Oelrichs v. Spain · Ritter v. Ritter · McGaw v. Acker, Merrall & Condit Co. · Hartford Electric Light Co. v. Federal Power Commission · Ballard v. Spruill
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.
“The present case is one of a seller who, complying with all other provisions of the contract of sale, fails to give possession within the agreed time. We think the rule applicable was stated in the recent case of Thompson v. Rector, [ 83 U.S.App.D.C. 371 ,] 170 F.2d 167 , where it was said: “Under a breach of contract, whether of warranty or otherwise, a defendant is liable for such damages as are the natural consequence and proximate result of his conduct.” In the instant case the seller knew the purchaser was buying the property as living quarters for himself and his family, and delay in delivering possession naturally and proximately required the purchaser to secure other accommodations for himself and family and to provide storage for his furniture during the period of delay. No question is raised as to the reasonableness of the amount paid for such accommodations and storage and we think they were proper items of damages. [Id. at 342.]”
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.