Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 179 U.S. 69 - James Knott v. Botany Worsted Mills P F

James Knott v. Botany Worsted Mills P F’s Empirical Analysis

179 U.S. 69 · 1900

Citation profile

208
cited by 208 later decisions
28
cited 28 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
February 2024
most recently cited

77 federal appellate · 46 district · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 208 later decisions (28 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2024 · most notably Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute (1991), Schnell v. The Vallescura (1934)

77 federal appellate · 46 district · 18 state decisions

4001900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 · The Silvia · Railroad Company v. Lockwood · The Chattahoochee · The Carib Prince

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

  1. “from liability for loss or damage arising from negligence, fault, or failure in proper loading, stowage, custody, care, or proper delivery”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “overrides and nullifies the stipulations of the bill of lading that the carrier shall be exempt from liability for such negligence, and that the contract shall be governed by the law of the ship's flag.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Plainly the main purposes of the act were to relieve the shipowner from liability for latent defects, not discoverable by the utmost care and diligence, and, in event that he has exercised due diligence to make his vessel seaworthy, to exempt him and the ship from responsibility for damage or loss resulting from faults or errors in navigation or in the management of the vessel.””
    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.