Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 772 F.2d 1358 - Afram Export Corporation v. Metallurgiki Halyps Sa

Afram Export Corporation v. Metallurgiki Halyps Sa’s Empirical Analysis

772 F.2d 1358 · 1985

Citation profile

139
cited by 139 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
October 2014
most recently cited

79 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 139 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2014 · most notably Salve Regina College v. Russell (1991), Hunter v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. (1986)

79 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

6501985199020002010decided

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 Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · Hanson v. Denckla · Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hall · McGee v. International Life Insurance · Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons

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 139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Federal judges are disinclined to make bold departures in areas of law that we have no responsibility for developing.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[A] forgone profit from exploiting a valuable opportunity that the breach of contract denied to the victim of the breach fits more comfortably under the heading of consequential damages than of incidental damages.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[Prejudgment interest] runs not from the date of breach to the date of cover but from the date of breach to the date of judgment....”
    2 later decisions 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.