Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 66 NY 82 - Rice v. . Manley

Rice v. . Manley’s Empirical Analysis

1876

Citation profile

98
cited by 98 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
24
states following
November 2015
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 3 district · 73 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 98 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2015 · most notably Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. (1911), Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co. (2008)

9 federal appellate · 3 district · 73 state decisions — followed in 24 states

170187618801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

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

  1. ““What difference can it make that plaintiff's could not enforce their agreement against Stebbins? The referee found that Stebbins would have performed the agreement, and that plaintiffs would have had the benefit of it but for the fraud of the defendant. How, then, can it be said that plaintiffs were not damaged; that there was not both fraud and damage so as to satisfy the rule above laid down? Plaintiffs’ actual damage is certainly as great as it would have been if Stebbins had been obliged to perform his contract of sale, and greater, for the réason that they cannot indemnify themselves for their loss by a suit against Stebbins to recover damages for a breach of the contract.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “It was not material'whether the contract of the -plaintiff with Sengraves .& Wilson was binding upon them or not, the evidence established beyond all question that they would- have fulfilled it but for the.false and fraudulent representations of the defendants.”
    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.