The Tornado Ellis v. Atlantic Mut Ins Co’s Empirical Analysis
108 U.S. 342 · 1883
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 9 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2014 · most notably Republic of France v. French Overseas Corporation the Malcolm Baxter Jr (1928), Texas Co. v. Hogarth Shipping Co. (1921)
31 federal appellate · 9 district · 25 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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 Jones v. United States · Henry Bulkley v. The Naumkeag Steam Cotton Company · Wells v. Calnan · Jacob Hugg and John Bandel v. The Augusta Insurance and Banking Company of the City of Augusta
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There the plaintiffs contracted to erect certain machinery on the defendant’s premises at specific prices for particular portions, and to keep it in repair for two years, the price to be paid upon completion of the whole. After some portions of the work had been finished, and others were in the course of completion, the premises, with all the machinery and materials thereon, were destroyed by an accidental fire. It was held that both parties were excused from the further performance of the contract, and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to sue in respect of those portions of the work which had been completed, whether the materials used had become the property of the defendant or not.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The shipowner was entitled to freight only for carrying the cargo and delivering it at Liverpool, with the implied covenant that this particular vessel was to take it on board and enter on the voyage. Before that event occurred this vessel was substantially put out of existence by no fault of the shipper, and he had and could have no benefit from the contract. He had a right, therefore, to treat the contract as rescinded, so far as any liability for freight was concerned.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“in contracts in which the performance depends on the continued existence of a given person or thing, a condition is implied, that the impossibility of performance arising from the perishing of the person or thing shall excuse the performance.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.