Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford (1988), 40 Cal. 3d 227 - People v. Fritz (1985)
2 federal appellate · 26 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 Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · Vaca v. Sipes · Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co. · Palmer v. Connecticut Railway & Lighting Co. · Burton-Dixie Corp. v. Timothy McCarthy Construction Co.
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he measure of damages for breach of contract is that which would place plaintiff in the same position as he would have been had the contract been performed, less proper deductions. In a suit for breach of an employment contract, then, the damages are the amount of compensation agreed upon for the remainder of the period involved less the amount which the employee earned or with reasonable diligence could have earned from other employment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The existence of damages must be proved; the amount of damages must be decided with all the certainty the case permits. * * * * * * * * * "`There are many cases in which, by reason of the ordinary experience and belief of mankind, the trial court is convinced that substantial pecuniary harm has been inflicted, even though its amount in dollars is incapable of proof. If the defendant had reason to foresee this kind of harm and the difficulty of proving its amount, the injured party will not be denied a remedy in damages because of the lack of certainty. * * *' [Citation.]" Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company v. Smith, supra, at 1026.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The offeror is the master of the offer, but we think fairness demands that when there is a dispute concerning mode of acceptance, the offer itself must clearly and definitely express an exclusive mode of acceptance. There must be no question that the offeror would accept the prescribed mode and only the prescribed mode. * * * The requirement [that of- feree just sign the offer and not add anything] strikes us as unreasonable, and strikes out as a prescribed mode of acceptance unless the offeror’s intention is explicitly set out. We agree that the mode of acceptance rule ‘ * * * has been enforced with a rigor worthy of a better cause.’ Calamari & Perillo, Contracts, § 2-22 (2d ed.1977). We are not eager to enforce it if there is any question about the mode of acceptance or about the clarity with which the demand was made.”
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.