The Kensington’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

89 federal appellate · 35 district · 36 state decisions

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. ““Where a contract is made in a foreign country, to be executed at least in part in the United States, the law of the foreign country, cither by its own force or in virtue of the agreement of the contracting parties, must bo enforced by the courts of the United States, oven although to do so requires the violation of the public policy of the United States. To state the proposition is, we think, to answer it. It is true, as a general rule, that the lex loci governs, and it is also true that the intention of the parties to a contract will be sought out and enforced. But both those elementary principles are subordinate to and qualified by the doctrine that neither by comity nor by the will of contracting parties can the public policy of a country be set at naught.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Shelton v. Canadian Northern Ry. Co. · Grosman v. Union Trust Co.

2. “It is settled in the courts of the United States that exemptions limiting carriers from responsibility for the negligence of themselves or their servants are both unjust and unreasonable, and will be deemed as wanting in the element of voluntary assent; and, besides, that such conditions are in conflict with public policy. This doctrine was announced so long ago, and has been so frequently reiterated, that it is elementary. We content ourselves with referring to the cases of the Baltimore & Ohio &c. Railway v. Voigt, 176 U.S. 498 , 505, 507 [20 S.Ct. 385, 388, 44 L.Ed. 560 (1900) ], and Knott v. Botany Mills, 179 U.S. 69 , 71 [21 S.Ct. 30, 30-31, 45 L.Ed. 90 (1900) ], where the previously adjudged cases are referred to and the principles by them expounded are restated.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute · Buck v. Oregon Railroad & Navigation Co.

3. “New York, June 6, 11)13. This ticket is good for first-class passage of 3 adults, 1 child,-servants, -infants, by the British steamship Cretic, to sail from Boston for Genoa on Juno 28/13, unless prevented by some unforeseen circumstances, upon tho following conditions, which are agreed upon between the carrier and each passenger, viz.: At 4 p. in. $ $ $ $ * * * * sis * * # * 4. Neither the shipowner, agent, master, or passage broker shall be liable as carrier in any form or manner for any article specified in section 4281 of tlie Revised statutes of the United States, shipped or taken on tlie vessel by any passenger in any baggage, unless the passenger at the time of such lading shall give to the shipowner, master, agent, clerk, or broker of the vessel a written notice of the true character and value thereof, and, if required, produce the same for inspection, and have the same entered on a bill of lading therefor, or unless such articles be delivered into the personal custody of the purser of the vessel, and the true character and value thereof stated in writing; and in the event of such deposit, neither the vessel, nor her owner, master, agent, or passage broker, shall be liable in respect of the ar- tides deposited, beyond the sum of $100, which sum it is mutually agreed that the value of the articles does not exceed, unless value in excess of that sum be declared, and a further Charge thereon be paid or tendered in advance on the excess value at the rate of 1 per cent. Ne”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. The Cretic