Hyman v. Cohen’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably Hutchison v. Tompkins (1972), Vareka Investments, N.V. v. American Investment Properties, Inc. (1984)
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 52 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 Clark v. Barnard · Ready v. Safeway Rock Company · Rader v. Prather · The People v. . the City Bank of Rochester · Sagamore Corporation v. Willcutt
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Second, the sum stipulated to be forfeited must not be so grossly disproportionate to any damages that might reasonably be expected to follow from a breach as to show that the parties could have intended only to induce full performance, rather than to liquidate their damages.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"First, were the damages consequent upon a premature termination of the lease by the lessor readily ascertainable? And it should be noted that this question is to be determined by a consideration of the status of the parties at the time the contract was entered into, and not at the time of the breach.... ...... "We know of no situation where the damages upon premature termination of a lease are less `readily ascertainable' than in the lease market in the Dade County area. Rentals on hotels and apartment houses in that area fluctuate not only from month to month and week to week, but even from day to day. It is impossible to say at the time of entering into a five-year lease agreement (which was the term of the instant lease) what the lease market will be at any given period during the life of the lease. If the lessee repudiates the lease, or the lessor is compelled to terminate it because of the default of the lessee, the lessor may be able to find a new tenant at a higher rental; or he may be forced to make a new lease at a much smaller rental. But we believe there is no way in which the parties can estimate, with reasonable certainty, what the lessor's damages will be in such case. ...... "In determining the parties' intention, we consider the circumstances as of the time the agreement was entered into; in determining whether equity should relieve against the forfeiture, we consider the circumstances as of the time of the happening of the event as a result of which the forf”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"* * * [T]o hold that a provision for the forfeiture of a security deposit * * * upon the premature termination of the lease is presumptively a penalty is not only unrealistic in our opinion, it does violence to the intent of the parties. We think the true rule is * * * `the sum thus to be retained is presumptively liquidated damages and not a penalty. '"”
2 later decisions 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.