Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 136 U.S. 408 - Richelieu Nav Co v. Boston Marine Ins Co

Richelieu Nav Co v. Boston Marine Ins Co’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
8
states following
January 1987
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently January 1987 · most notably J. H. Burton Sons Co. v. May (1925), Fort Fetterman v. South Carolina State Highway Department (1958)

8 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 state decisions

701890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 The Pennsylvania · The Belgenland · Liverpool Steam Co v. Phenix Ins Co · Union Ins Co Philadelphia v. Smith · Work v. Leathers

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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““As it is not contended that there was any evidence of .actual acceptance, and as it clearly appeared that the rescuing expedition was sent before the telegraphic notice of abandonment was given, and as the evidence did not tend to show that- that expedition was sent with the intention of rescuing ‘and repairing’ the Spartan, or that the insurers brought the Spartan to Detroit (if they •did bring her), with the intention of ‘repairing her,’ ■each one of the requested instructions was objectionable. ’ ’”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““But it was admissible in this case, not on the ground of agency, but because it was made part of the proofs of loss; being directly referred to in the proofs in the statement that the vessel ran ashore, ‘and became a wreck and total loss, and was duly abandoned by the owners to her insurers, as will appear by certified copy of the protest of her master and mariners, heretofore served upon you.’ Hence the admission of the proofs of loss involved the admission of the explanatory writing.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “As the Spartan was violating the statute laws of Canada in running at full speed in a dense fog, the plaintiff must show affirmatively that neither the speed of the steamer nor the defects of the compass could have caused or have contributed to cause the stranding of the steamer. The burden of proving a loss of this kind is upon the plaintiff. There is no presumption that the loss was occasioned by the peril insured against by the defendant.”
    1 later decision 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.