American Computer Trust Leasing v. Jack Farrell Implement Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 10 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably Metzger v. Sebek (1994), Wisdom
8 federal appellate · 10 district · 7 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 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bank Bribery Amendments)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · McNally v. United States
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]hose that ‘do not arise directly according to the usual course of things from the breach of the contract itself, but are rather those which are the consequence of special circumstances known to or reasonably supposed to have been contemplated by the parties when the contract was made.’ Direct damages ... arise out of the breach itself; consequential damages [are] damages foreseeably resulting from the breach.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The ownership or rightful possession of land necessarily involves the right not only to the unimpaired condition of the property itself, but also to some reasonable comfort and convenience in its occupation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]nything which is injurious to health, or indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property.”
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.