O'Brien v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
168 U.S. 287 · 1897
Citation profile
71 federal appellate · 33 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 197 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2016 · most notably Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert (1947), Commercial Molasses Corp. v. New York Tank Barge Corp. (1941)
71 federal appellate · 33 district · 29 state decisions — followed in 13 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Liverpool & Great Western Steam Co. v. Phenix Insurance · Place v. Norwich & New York Transportation Co. · the Schooner Freeman v. Alvah Buckingham · Dupont De Nemours Co v. John Vance et al.
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 197 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The elementary canon of interpretation is, not that particular words may be isolatedly considered, but that the whole contract must be brought into view and interpreted with reference to the nature of the obligations between the parties, and the intention which they have manifested in forming them.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(U. S. Code, title 46, § 183 [46 USCA § 183]) “The liability of the owner of any vessel, for any embezzlement, loss, or destruction, by any person, of any property, goods, or merchandise, shipped or put on board of such vessel, or for any loss, damage, or injury by collision, or for any act, matter, or thing, loss, damage, or forfeiture, done, occasioned, or incurred without the privity, or knowledge of such owner or owners, shall in no case exceed the amount or value of the interest of such owner in such vessel, and her freight then pending. (R. S. § 4283.)” (U. S. Code, title 46, § 184 [46 USCA § 184]) “Whenever any sueh embezzlement, loss, or destruction is suffered by several freighters or owners of goods, wares, merchandise, or any property whatever, on the same voyage, and the whole 'value of the vessel, and her freight for the voyage, is not sufficient to make compensation to each of them, they shall receive compensation from the owner of the vessel in proportion to their respective losses; and for that pur pose the freighters and owners of the property, and the owner of the vessel, or any of them, may take the appropriate proceedings in any court, for the purpose of apportioning the sum for which the owner of the vessel may be liable among the parties entitled thereto. (R. S. § 4284; Feb. 27, 1877, e. 69, § 1, 19 Stat. 251 .)” (U. S. Code, title 46, § 185 [46 USCA § 185]) “It shall be deemed a sufficient compliance on the part of such owner with the requirements of th”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In the exercise of their jurisdiction with respect to such bonds, courts of admiralty are not governed by the strict rules of the common law, but act upon enlarged principles of equity.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kerr v. Schwaner · The Kalfarli
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.