First Commodity Traders, Inc. v. Heinold Commodities, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
766 F.2d 1007 · 1985
Citation profile
68 federal appellate · 7 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 235 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2016 · most notably Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation (1990), Hedberg v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co. (1995)
68 federal appellate · 7 district · 8 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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Desist v. United States · Railway Company v. McCarthy · Hulver v. United States · Mary Beth v. City of Chicago Tikalsky
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 235 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[P]revailing party' means a party who has obtained some relief in action, even if that party has not sustained all of his or her claims.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““Where the terms of an agreement are not clear, the court will construe the contract to give effect to the intent of the parties, [citation omitted]. The intention of the parties will be ascertained by an examination of all the facts and circumstances manifested by the evidence, including ... the purpose or object for which [the contract] was created, [citation omitted]. When ascertaining intent, the court may construe the words used in the contract according to their ‘ordinary, natural and commonly accepted meaning unless it clearly appears that the parties intended to ascribe to them a peculiar or unusual meaning.’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The fact that the agreement between [the parties] did not explicitly provide for allocation of customers or commissions upon termination does not allow [the plaintiff] to now invoke a quasi-contractual remedy. In entering the agreement, [the plaintiff] assumed the risk of losing customers to [the defendant] in return for [the defendant’s] trading services. [The plaintiff] could have, but did not provide for the allocation of this risk under the terms of the contract. [The plaintiff] may not unilaterally alter the terms of the contract by now claiming unjust enrichment.”
3 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.