Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 674 F.2d 134 - United Merchants and Manufacturers Inc United Merchants and Manufacturers Inc v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States

United Merchants and Manufacturers Inc United Merchants and Manufacturers Inc v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States’s Empirical Analysis

674 F.2d 134 · 1982

Citation profile

131
cited by 131 later decisions
2
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 131 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Martin v. Bank of Germantown (1985), In re Trans World Airlines Incorporated Interface Group-Nevada Incorporated (1998)

9 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions

5001982199020002010decided

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 Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Rodriquez v. United States · Security Mortgage Co. v. Powers · Kothe v. R. C. Taylor Trust

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

  1. “[T]he case law does not support a distinction between secured and unsecured creditors to who seek to recover collection costs in bankruptcy.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(U)nder New York law a contractually agreed upon sum for liquidated damages will be sustained where (1) actual damages may be difficult to determine and (2) the sum stipulated is not “plainly disproportionate” to the possible loss.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(U)nder New York law ... the actual damages suffered by the party for whose benefit the clause is inserted in the contract have little relevance to the validity of a liquidated damages clause. The soundness of such a clause is tested in light of the circumstances existing as of the time that the agreement is entered into rather than at the time that the damages are incurred or become payable _ It thus makes no difference whether the actual damages are ultimately higher or lower than the sum stated in the clause ....”
    3 later decisions 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.