7 Ill. App. 2d 385 - Meyer v. Buckman’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently July 2014 · most notably 51 Ill. 2d 143 - Schatz v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (1972), 44 Ill. App. 3d 375 - Rhodes v. Sigler (1976)
11 federal appellate · 32 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 Grasse v. Dealer's Transport Co. · Barnett v. Caldwell Furniture Co. · In Re Estate of Tilliski · Douthart v. Congdon · Franknel v. Allied Mills, Inc.
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where the president of a plaintiff corporation, who has knowledge of the facts, testifies that its costs were so many dollars and its profit was so many dollars per unit, which testimony stands alone and undisputed, the defendant presenting no evidence that the costs and profit contended for by the plaintiff were not correct or unfair or unreasonable, that is sufficient to sustain a recovery by the plaintiff for such loss of profits; the burden of proving the damages were not correct or unfair was on the defendant who had breached the contract.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * the plaintiff, though an interested witness, was an entirely competent witness, — and the determination of the credibility of the witnesses and weight of the evidence was for the Trial Court, — his testimony is corroborated, if that were necessary, by his statement as to the particular breakdown of costs and by the circumstances * * *.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We do not believe the consequences of a violation or intended violation of Section 4 by the plaintiff, if he so did or so intended, extend beyond the infliction of the criminal penalties prescribed by the Act, of that the Legislature, by implication, intended, in addition to the criminal penalties, to impose the additional and possibly greater penalty of determining his contract with the third party to be illegal, null and void. The statute imposes no restriction or inhibition on the plaintiff pertaining to suits or recovery. If he violated or intended to violate the act, the criminal penalties are exclusive. Had the Legislature intended otherwise it would, and could readily have, said so.” (Italics added.)”
1 later decision 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.