토론:벤저민 N. 카도조

유명판결

• Meinhard v. Salmon, concerning fiduciary duty of business partners.
• Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon was both a minor cause celebre at the time and an influential development in the law of contract consideration.
• Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co. in 1928 was important in the development of the concept of the proximate cause in tort law.
• MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. help signal the end of the law's attachment with privity as a source of duty in products liability.
• DeCicco v. Schweizer he approached the issue of third party beneficiary law in a contract for marriage case.
• Jacob & Youngs v. Kent, he argued expectation damages arising from a breach of contract are limited to the diminuation of the property's value if the undoing of the breach was an economic waste.
• Cardozo struck a blow for duty in a railway case where boys in New York City were using a poorly fenced off area of the railway as a jumping off point for diving in the river on a hot summer day. In Hynes v. New York Central Railroad Company, 231 N.Y. 229, 131 N.E. 898 (N.Y. 1921) he held that the defendant railway owed a duty of care despite the victims being trespassers.
• Berkey v. Third Avenue Railway, 244 N.Y. 84 (1926), Cardozo pierced the corporate veil saying that the parent subsidiary relationship is a legal metaphor:The whole problem of the relation between parent and subsidiary corporations is one that is still enveloped in the mists of metaphor. Metaphors in law are to be narrowly watched, for starting as devices to liberate thought, they end often by enslaving it. We say at times that the corporate entity will be ignored when the parent corporation operates a business through a subsidiary which is characterized as an 'alias' or a 'dummy.'... Dominion may be so complete, interference so obtrusive, that by the general rules of agency the parent will be a principal and the subsidiary an agent. (pp. 93–94)
• Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan dissenting from a narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause
• Palko v. Connecticut rationalized the Court's previous holdings incorporating specific portions of the Bill of Rights against the states via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as declaring that the due process clause incorporated those rights which were "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." Though Palko's specific result (namely the refusal to incorporate the double jeopardy clause upon the states) was overturned in 1969's Benton v. Maryland, Cardozo's broader analysis of the Due Process Clause has never been displaced.
• Welch v. Helvering concerning Internal Revenue Code Section 162 and the meaning of "ordinary" business deductions.

In Murphy v. [Steeplechase Amusement Park][1] he denied Murphy a right to recover for a knee injury from riding "The Flopper" because plaintiff Murphy had legally "assumed the risk."