Everett v. . R. R.’s Empirical Analysis
1905
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently January 1925
9 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 Liverpool Steam Co v. Phenix Ins Co · Railway Co. v. Wynn · Moulton v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. · Mitchell v. Carolina Central Railroad · Gardner v. Southern Railroad
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“But in none of these is the valuation relied upon in this bill of lading sanctioned or justified to the extent here claimed for it. So far as we can discover, all of them condemn an effort to limit liability for negligence by a uniform predetermined valuation arbitrarily fixed and placed in a printed bill of lading without any reference to the actual value of the property and without any estimate made or attempt to value the property of the particular shipment, more especially where the difference between the stipulated and actual value is so pronounced that the evident purpose and necessary effect are to practically deny recovery for negligence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Where a shipper enters into an express contract with a common carrier, by which he agrees in consideration of a reduced (133) rate of freight that the carrier shall not be liable for more than a stated sum in case the goods shipped are lost while in the carrier's possession, the contract will be upheld as to loss not involving negligence on the part of the carrier, but carriers cannot by any special contract exempt themselves from liability for loss occasioned by their negligence, and this is so as well where the contract provides for partial or limited exemption as where it contemplates total exemption from liability.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is a well-settled rule of law, practically of universal acceptance, that for reasons of public policy a common carrier is not permitted, even by express stipulation, to exempt itself from loss occasioned by its own negligence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Parker v. . R. R.
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.