Brawley v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

93 federal appellate · 25 district · 93 state decisions

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

1. “. “Prom an examination of the authorities, it seems to us that the general rules which must govern this case may be expressed as follows:. Where a contract is made to soil or furnish certain goods identified by reference to independent circumstances, such as an entire lot deposited in a certain warehouse, or all that may be manufactured by the vendor in a certain establishment, or that may be shipped by bis agent or correspondent in certain vessels, and the quantity is named with the qualification of ‘about,’ or ‘more or less,’ or words of like import, the contract applies to the specific lot; and the naming of the quantity is not regarded as in the nature of a warranty, but only as an estimate of the probable amount, in reference to which good faith is all that is required of the party making it. In such cases, the governing rule is somewhat analogous to that which is applied in the description of lands, where natural boundaries and monuments control courses and distances and estimates of quantity. “But when no such independent circumstances are- referred to, and the engagement is to furnish goods of a certain quality or character to a certain amount, the quantity specified is material, and governs the contract. The addition of the qualifying words, ‘about,’ ‘more or less,’ and the like, in such cases, is only for the purpose of providing against accidental variations arising from slight and unimportant excesses or deficiencies in number, measure, or weight. If, however, the”

   19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Norrington v. Wright · Shader Contractors, Inc. v. United States

2. ““ All this is irrelevant matter. The written contract merged all previous negotiations, and is presumed, in law, to express the final understanding of the parties. If the contract did not express the true agreement, it .was the claimant’s folly to have signed it. The court cannot be governed by any such outside considerations. Previous and contemporary transactions and facts may be very properly taken into consideration to ascertain the subject-matter of a contract, and the sense in which the parties may have used particular terms, but not to alter or modify the plain language which they have used.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Simpson v. United States · Mellen v. Ford

3. “"The contract was not for the delivery of any particular lot or any particular quantify, but to deliver at the post of Fort Pembina eight hundred and eighty cords of wood, ‘more; or less, as shall be determined to be necessary by the post commander for the regular supply, in accordance with army regulations, of the troops and employes of the garrison of said post, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1871.’ These are the determinative words of the contract, and the quantity designated — eight hundred and eighty cords — is to be regarded merely as an estimate of what Hie officer making the contract at the time supposed might be required. The substantial engagement was to furnish what should be determined to be necessary by the post commander for the regular supply for the year, in accordance with army regulations.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Budge v. United Smelting & Refining Co. · Weaver and Associates Inc v. Asphalt Construction Inc