Beverly v. Macy’s Empirical Analysis
702 F.2d 931 · 1983
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Secretary of State for Defence v. Trimble Navigation Ltd. (2007), 20 Mass. App. Ct. 49 - Gilmore v. Century Bank & Trust Co. (1985)
9 federal appellate · 6 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 42 U.S.C. § 4001 (Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012) · 42 U.S.C. § 4011 · 42 U.S.C. § 4014 · 42 U.S.C. § 4055
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Bonner v. City of Prichard · Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. · Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States · United States 77-1359 v. Kimbell Foods 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"1) Unless otherwise agreed between promisor and promisee, a beneficiary of a promise is an intended beneficiary if recognition of a right to performance in the beneficiary is appropriate to effectuate the intention of the parties and either "(a) the performance of the promise will satisfy an obligation of the promisee to pay money to the beneficiary; or "(b) the circumstances indicate that the promisee intends to give the beneficiary the benefit of the promised performance. "2) An incidental beneficiary is a beneficiary who is not an intended beneficiary."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"It is not essential to the creation of a right in an intended beneficiary that he be identified when a contract containing the promise is made. ".... "... [W]hen determining whether the parties to the contract intended to bestow a benefit on a third party, a court may look beyond the contract to the circumstances surrounding its formation. See Ross v. Imperial Constr. Co., 572 F.2d [518] at 520-521 [5th Cir.1978]; Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 302, Reporters Note."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"[A]ppellee argues that the parties to the contract did not intend to bestow a benefit upon Mrs. Beverly, and that, at most, she was an incidental beneficiary of the service agreement. . . . However, the economic motivation of the parties is not dispositive; rather, `the intention of the parties disclosed by the writing and surrounding circumstances known to the parties, and not their motive , determines the rights of the third-party beneficiary.' [Citations omitted.] . . . Thus, the question of `intent to benefit' is more complex than an inquiry into whether the primary or sole purpose (or motive) was to benefit a nonparty to the contract. "In probing the intention of the parties, reliance on the part of the putative third-party beneficiary can be a significant factor. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 302, Comment d. Here, this factor weighs heavily in favor of Mrs. Beverly. Through 1976, she was aware that premium due notices had arrived annually, and her undisputed expectation was that this practice would continue. In our view, this reliance was reasonable, and its reasonableness strongly suggests that the parties contemplated a direct benefit to her through the NFIA's assumption of an obligation to send renewal notices. While this reliance, by itself, would not allow a court to read into the contract terms that do not exist (see 4 Corbin, Contracts § 779B), Mrs. Beverly's conduct when combined with the express obligations incorporated into that contract strongly su”
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.