Pincus v. Pabst Brewing Co.’s Empirical Analysis
893 F.2d 1544 · 1990
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably Rosario v. Livaditis (1992), Mayer v. Gary Partners & Co. (1994)
37 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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
Relies on Cabrera-Martinez v. United States · Upton Assignee v. Tribilcock · 67 Wis. 2d 130 - Garriguenc v. Love · 118 Wis. 2d 299 - Fehring v. Republic Insurance · 88 Wis. 2d 712 - Jones v. Jenkins
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because fixing a damage award is an exercise in fact-finding, only those awards that are monstrously excessive, born of passion and prejudice, or not rationally connected to the evidence may be altered.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in a dramatically better position than his rational expectations could have justified”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is significant that this second Benck-iser-Pincus contract provided absolutely no compensation for Pincus unless PMP was transferred to Benckiser under either the “put” or “call” options of the contract. This is yet more evidence that Pincus’ contract with Benckiser was not contingent or inchoate — Pincus was clearly and effectively committed to following its terms if he were to exercise his right of first refusal to purchase PMP. Pincus was not obligated to finance his purchase through such an instrument, of course, but once he chose to do so he staked out the limits of the amount he could expect to earn if the deal were consummated.”
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.