Lichten v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
189 F.2d 939 · 1951
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 9 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 143 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2018 · most notably Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc. (1976), 148 W. Va. 160 - Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Federal Insurance Co. of New York (1963)
42 federal appellate · 9 district · 34 state decisions — followed in 18 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.
Relationships
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. · National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc. · Lovell v. City of Griffin
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 143 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he provisions of a tariff properly filed with the Board and within its authority are deemed valid until rejected by it.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(3) ‘The liability ⅜ ⅞ ⅜ for the loss of * ⅜ * any personal property, including baggage (whether or not such property has been delivered into the custody of the carrier) shall be limited to an amount equal to the actual value of such property, which shall be conclusively presumed not to exceed $100 * * * unless the passenger has, at the time of presenting such property for transportation, when checking in for flight, declared a higher value and paid an additional charge * * *.’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Croninger case clearly shows that the purpose of that part of the Carmack Amendment which is relevant here was to nullify state legislation, or state decisional rules, and to substitute therefor the general Federal ‘common law’ rule. Under that Federal ‘common law’ rule, even before the Carmack Amendment, the Interstate Commerce Commission could not have legalized a tariff provision exempting a carrier from liability for its own negligence. “It is inconceivable that Congress intended, merely by remaining silent, to authorize the Board (CAB) to adopt a policy flatly at odds with the hitherto uniform Federal policy, frequently announced by the Supreme Court in decisions involving all sorts of transportation, and ultimately expressed by Congress in statutes governing carriers. I do not see why the reasons for that rule — i.e., the encouragement of care on the part of the carriers, and the protection of shippers and passengers from imposition by the carriers — do not apply with equal force to transportation by air. I would suppose that for those reasons, if Congress intended that uniform rules should govern interstate air commerce, Congress intended that the hitherto federal rule as to liability should govern here.””
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.