Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 87 U.S. 403 - Lyon v. Pollard

Lyon v. Pollard’s Empirical Analysis

87 U.S. 403 · 1874

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
September 2014
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 2 district · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2014 · most notably Camalier & Buckley-Madison, Inc. v. Madison Hotel, Inc. (1975), All States Service Station, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey (1941)

10 federal appellate · 2 district · 15 state decisions

80187418801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

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

  1. “The only object or purpose of any notice in the case was to apprise the party on whom it was served that the other party intended to terminate the contract. The contract itself fixed the time when this should take place, namely, thirty days after the service. The fact that the notice refers to a past notice and speaks of the termination of the contract as being already accomplished, does not destroy its effect as a notice of present intent to put an end to the arrangement. This notice of intent the contract makes effectual at the end of thirty days, and so the court was asked to instruct the jury. In declining to do this the court left the jury to infer that it had no effect whatever. It is probable that if the first notice was wholly waived or abandoned the defendant had no right to dismiss the plaintiff until the 19th day of October. But even in reference to damages defendant had a right to show that under the contract and the notice she had only fifteen days to remain, and was injured only to that extent.”
    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.