Noonan v. Gilbert’s Empirical Analysis
68 F.2d 775 · 1934
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Nyhus v. Travel Management Corp. (1972), Stearns v. Williams (1952)
23 federal appellate · 3 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 Oscanyan v. Arms Co. · Trist v. Child · Alexander Marshall v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company · Tool Company v. Norris · Steele v. Drummond
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] court in the due administration of justice is bound to refuse its aid to enforce a contract that offends public policy. The invalidity of the contract may not be waived by any system of pleading, or even by the express stipulation of the parties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * In determining the question of public policy, we are not so much concerned with what was done by the plaintiff, as by what the terms of the contract afforded him and his associates an opportunity of doing. The contract in broad terms authorized plaintiff and his associates to take such steps as they might deem necessary for protecting the rights of the defendant against the Alien Property Custodian, the United States government, or any of its departments, or their agents or representatives, and to enforce their rights against any department, bureau,' or division of the government. “To determine the inducement afforded the plaintiff and his associates for improper or corrupt conduct, the terms of the contract are controlling, and in determining the validity of their claim for compensation the court must be guided by what they contracted to do rather than the service rendered. * * * We assume that they [the services] were legitimate, but the validity of the contract depends on the nature of the original offer, and, whatever their form, the tendency of such offers is the same. * * * The court will not inquire what was done. If that should be improper, it probably would be hidden, and would not appear. In its inception, the offer, however intended, necessarily invited and tended to induce improper solicitations, and it intensified the inducement by the contingency of the reward.””
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.