Soule v. Bon Ami Company
Louis H. Soule, Appellant, v. Bon Ami Company, Respondent
Soule v. Bon Ami Co., 139 N.E. 754 (N.Y. 1923)
Opinion of the Court
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur:- Hogan, and McLaughlin, JJ.; Cardozo, Pound, Crane and Andrews, JJ., concur on ground plaintiff failed to prove profits resulting from change of plans. Absent: His cock, Ch.-J.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“an idea lacking novelty and originality ... will not readily be regarded ... as ... consideration for [a] promise”)
Cited by 24 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Courts of Appeals6
- Federal District Courts3
- State Highest Courts8
- State Appellate Courts2
- State Trial Courts5
Relies on it most ⓘ
- Craig P. Nadel -Counter- v. Play-By-Play Toys & Novelties, Inc. -Counter-
- Apfel v. Prudential-Bache Securities Inc.
- Stanley v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.
- Brunner v. Stix, Baer & Fuller Co.
- Betens v. Casino Consultants, Inc.
- Hwesu S. Murray v. National Broadcasting Company, Inc. And Brandon Tartikoff
Most recent
- Craig P. Nadel -Counter- v. Play-By-Play Toys & Novelties, Inc. -Counter-
- Apfel v. Prudential-Bache Securities Inc.
- Hudson Hotels Corporation v. Choice Hotels International, and Robert Hazard
- Garrido v. Burger King Corp.
- Hwesu S. Murray v. National Broadcasting Company, Inc. And Brandon Tartikoff
- Murray v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc.
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.