Rautbord v. Ehmann’s Empirical Analysis
190 F.2d 533 · 1951
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently November 2016
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
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 The Daniel Ball · Just v. Chambers · Taubel-Scott-Kitzmiller Co. v. Fox · Economy Light & Power Co. v. United States · La Bourgogne
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The whole doctrine of limitations of liability presupposes that a liability exists which is to be limited. If no liability exists there is nothing to limit. And in a proceeding to limit liability two duties are imposed upon the court. The first is to ascertain whether any liability exists. If it is found to exist the second duty arises, which is to ascertain whether the loss or damage was occasioned or incurred without the ‘privity or knowledge’ of the owner of the ship. If no liability is found to exist, the absence of all liability is to be decreed, and there the matter ends.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Boat was maintained and operaged on a stretch of the Fox River between McHenry Dam in Illinois and Wilmot Dam in Wisconsin””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Stephens
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.