In re Podolsky’s Empirical Analysis
115 F.2d 965 · 1940
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently October 1998
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
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 Home Insurance Company v. Baltimore Warehouse Company · Roberts v. Firemen's Insurance · Millers' Mut. Fire Ins. v. Warroad Potato Growers Ass'n · Siter v. Morrs · 108 Pa. Super. 148 - Williams & Manning v. Southern Mutual Insurance
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But the words in the policy taken out by the bankrupt in this case were ‘on his interest in and on his legal liability for’ property of others which he held in his possession. So far as it appears the legal interest of the bankrupt in this property was nothing, and if he had any interest the insurance money which he collected would to that extent undoubtedly go to his trustee and not to these claimants. Did he have any ‘legal liability for’ such property? A bailee, in the absence of express contract, is not liable for the loss of bailed goods if the loss is not caused by his negligence. 6 Am.Jur. § 242. The appellees claim in their brief that ‘the bankrupt was legally liable to return the merchandise unused or to pay for the same’. But there is no basis for this statement in the stipulation, and the stipulation is our sole source of facts in this case. The language of the insurance policy is definite in limiting the liability of the insurance company to the interest or the legal liability of the assured for the bailed property. The insurer’s obligation ‘cannot be enlarged or varied by judicial construction’. Millers’ Mut. Fire Ins. Ass’n v. Warroad Potato Growers Ass’n, 8 Cir., 1938, 94 F.2d 741, 742 . It seems clear, therefore, that neither the assured nor these claimants would have had any right against the insurance companies to recover for the loss of the bailed property under the terms of the policies.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.