How cited: Mattingly Bridge Co. v. Holloway & Son Construction Co. · Go Syfert

Mattingly Bridge Co. v. Holloway & Son Construction Co. (1985)

green · 43 citation events across 9 courts. Showing the 17 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198520052026
Rule Authority · 6th Cir.
Co., 694 S.W.2d 702, 705 (Ky. 1985) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 356(1) (Am.
quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 356(1) (Am. L. Inst. 1981)
Rule Authority · 6th Cir.
Co., 694 S.W.2d 702, 704-05 (Ky. 1985), a party is entitled to compensatory damages, i.e., those damages which “put the injured party in the same condition, so far as money can do so, in which he would have been if the contract had been duly performed.” Graves v. Winer, 351 S.W.2d 193, 195 (Ky. 1961); see also Univ. of Louisville v. RAM Eng’g & Constr., Inc., 199 S.W.3d 746, 748 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005); McGuire v. Lorian, 5 Ky. Op. 145, 145 (Ky. 1872) (holding that a party may r…
Rule Authority · 1st Cir.
Co., 694 S.W.2d 702, 704 (Ky.1985) (allowing enforcement of liquidated damages provision granting $750 damages per day late without limit but reducing recovery from unreasonable 193-day penalty to reasonable 32 and 2/3-day damages); Bd. of Cnty.
green Barrie School v. Patch (2007)
Rule Authority · Md. · 2 citations in this opinion
If the award of liquidated damages exceeds any reasonable limitation by either one or the other, to such extent it is unenforceable.” Mattingly Bridge Co., Inc. v. Holloway & Son Const. Co., 694 S.W.2d 702, 705 (Ky.1985) (emphasis added). .
green Barrie School v. Patch (2007)
Rule Authority · Md. · 2 citations in this opinion
If the award of liquidated damages exceeds any reasonable limitation by either one or the other, to such extent it is unenforceable." Mattingly Bridge Co., Inc. v. Holloway & Son Const. Co., 694 S.W.2d 702, 705 (Ky.1985) (emphasis added). [4] The School maintains that there was no empty "kindergarten" seat, and, thus, that the Patches' daughter was not replaced.
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
Liquidated damages provisions should be upheld “only (1) where the actual damages sustained from a breach of contract would be very difficult to ascertain and (2) where, after the breach occurs, it appears that the amount fixed as -8- liquidated damages is not grossly disproportionate to the damages actually sustained.” Mattingly Bridge Co. v. Holloway & Son Const. Co., 694 S.W.2d 702, 705 (Ky. 1985) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted).
emphasis in original
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
Co., 694 S.W.2d 702, 705 (Ky. 1985).
Rule Authority · W.D. Ky.
Const. Co., 694 S.W.2d 702, 705 (Ky. 1985).
Rule Authority · Mo. Ct. App.
Mattingly, 694 S.W.2d at 705 (internal citations omitted).
internal citations omitted
Rule Authority · Ky.
This is so because, for a liquidated-damages provision to 38 Mattingly, 694 S.W.2d at 705 . 39 Id. (internal citations omitted) (emphasis in original). 4o 497 S.W.2d 705, 706 (Ky. 1973). 41 Mattingly, 694 S.W.2d at 705 (internal citations omitted). 36 be valid, “the amount fixed as liquidated damages [cannot be] grossly disproportionate to the damages actually sustained.”42 The trial court denied T+C’s motion based on an incorrect interpretation of Mattingly.
internal citations omitted
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
Co., 694 S.W.2d 702, 705 (Ky. 1985). [C]ourts now are strongly inclined to allow parties to make their own contracts, and to carry out their intentions, even when it would result in the recovery of an amount stated as liquidated damages, upon proof of the violation of the contract, and without proof of the damages actually sustained.
Rule Authority · Ky.
Mattingly Bridge Co., Inc. v. Holloway & Son Construction, 694 S.W.2d 702, 704-05 (Ky. 1985).
Rule Authority · W.D. Ky.
Smith v. Ward, 256 S.W.2d 385, 387 (Ky.1953); Robert F. Simmons and Associates v. Urban Renewal and Community Development Agency of Louisville, 497 S.W.2d 705, 706 (Ky.1973); Mattingly Bridge Co. v. Holloway & Son Construction Co., 694 S.W.2d 702, 706 (Ky.1985); Man O War Restaurants, Inc. v. Martin, 932 S.W.2d 366, 369 (Ky.1996).
Rule Authority · W.D. Ky.
Co., 694 S.W.2d 702, 705 (Ky.1985) (adopting the language of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 356(1) which provides that damages “may be liquidated in the agreement but only at an amount that is reasonable in the *658 light of the anticipated or actual loss caused by the breach and the difficulties of proof of loss”).
green Kelly v. Marx (1998)
Rule Authority · Mass. App. Ct.
Co., 694 S.W.2d 702, 705 (Ky. 1985); Hawkins v. Foster, 897 S.W.2d 80, 85 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995)*; Weber v. Rivera, 255 Mont. 195, 200 (1992)*; Kozlik v. Emelco, Inc., 240 Neb. 525, 536-537 (1992); Mason v. Fakhimi, 109 Nev. 1153, 1156-1157 (1993)*; Shallow Brook Assocs. v. Dube, 135 N.H. 40, 48-49 (1991)*; Wasserman’s Inc. v. Middletown, 137 N.J. 238, 251 (1994)*; Knutton v. Cofield, 273 N.C. 355, 361 (1968); Lake Ridge Academy v. Carney, 66 Ohio St. 3d 376, 382 (1993); Illing…
Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.
(Citation omitted.) Mattingly Bridge Co. v. Holloway & Son Construction Co., Ky., 694 S.W.2d 702, 705 (1985).
Cited (see also) · W.D. Ky. · signal: see also
Granite State Ins. v. Star Mine Servs., 29 F. 4th 317 , 323–24 (6th Cir. 2022); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 356(1) (1981), adopted in Mattingly Bridge Co. v. Holloway & Son Const. Co., 694 S.W.2d 702 , 704–05 (Ky. 1985).