Langham-Hill Petroleum Inc. v. Southern Fuels Co.’s Empirical Analysis
813 F.2d 1327 · 1987
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Anchorage Associates v. Virgin Islands Board of Tax Review (1990), Cray Communications, Inc. v. Novatel Computer System, Inc. (1994)
19 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from West Virginia Northern District Court)
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security · Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Carbon County Coal Co. · Stevens v. Lawyers Mutual Liability Insurance · Nathaniel B. Wright, III v. Delbert C. Jackson
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A force majeure clause is not intended to buffer a party against the normal risks of a contract. The normal risk of a fixed-price contract is that the market price will change.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is no absolute requirement that a ruling on a motion for summary judgment be preceded by a hearing....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This court has previously expressed some opposition to efforts by a party to a contract to characterize an act which results in price fluctuations as being outside its control, thereby rendering the contract unenforceable. ‘“Shortage of cash or inability to buy at a remunerative price’ cannot be regarded ‘as a contingency beyond the seller’s control.’ ” Wheeling Valley Coal Corporation v. Mead, 186 F.2d 219 (4th Cir.1950). If fixed-price contracts can be avoided due to fluctuations in price, then the entire purpose of fixed-price contracts, which is to protect both the buyer and the seller from the risks of the market, is defeated.”
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.