Overseas Development Disc Corporation v. Sangamo Construction Company Inc Overseas Development Disc Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
686 F.2d 498 · 1982
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Hershey Foods Corporation v. Ralph Chapek Inc (1987), First Wisconsin Trust Co. v. Schroud (1990)
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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 Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · International Business Machines Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission · Nolan v. Transocean Air Lines · 77 Ill. App. 3d 136 - Champagnie v. WE O'Neil Construction Co. · Nolan v. Transocean Air Lines
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.
“The purpose of such a provision is to make the assignee bear the risks of leaving the obligor in the dark. Here those risks never materialized. Neither Sangamo nor Overseas paid any money to Farouki before ... notice of the assignment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) the place where a relationship between the parties was centered, provided that the receipt of enrichment was substantially related to the relationship, (b) the place where the benefit or enrichment was received, (c) the place where the act conferring the benefit or enrichment was done, (d) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and (e) the place where a physical thing, such as land or a chattel, which was substantially related to the enrichment, was situated at the time of the enrichment. These contacts are to be evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Vance v. Gallagher“There is some indication that the Illinois rule may be changing. In Champagne v. W.E. O’Neil Construction Co., 77 Ill.App.3d 136 , 32 Ill.Dec. 609 , 395 N.E.2d 990 (1st Dist.1979), the Second Restatement’s “most significant contacts test was extended from tort to contract claims.”
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.