Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 177 U.S. 655 - The Carlos F. Roses

The Carlos F. Roses’s Empirical Analysis

177 U.S. 655 · 1900

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
March 2009
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 5 district · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2009 · most notably Whitney v. Wenman (1905), Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Harold (1916)

10 federal appellate · 5 district · 22 state decisions

17019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Shaw v. Railroad Co. · Pollard v. Vinton · The Brig Amy Warwick the Schooner Crenshaw the Barque Hiawatha the Schooner Brilliante · Alexander Lawrence v. Charles Minturn

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

  1. ““Bills of lading stand as the substitute and representative of the goods described therein, and while quasi negotiable instruments, are not negotiable in the full sense in which that term is applied to bills and notes. The transfer of the bill passes to the transferee the transferror’s title to the goods described, and the presumption as to ownership arising from the bill may be explained or rebutted by other evidence showing where the real ownership lies. A pledgee to whom a bill of lading is given as security gets the legal title to the goods and the right of possession only if such is the intention of the parties, and that intention is open to. explanation. Inquiry into the transaction in which the bill originated -is not precluded because it came into the hands of persons who may have innocently paid value for it.””
    1 later decision 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.