Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 191 F.2d 370 - United States v. Farr Sugar Corp.

United States v. Farr Sugar Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

191 F.2d 370 · 1951

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
June 1995
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1995

13 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

10019511960197019801990decided

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

Relationships

Relies on Liverpool & Great Western Steam Co. v. Phenix Insurance · Railroad Company v. Lockwood · Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railway Co. v. Voigt · The Caledonia · The Southwark

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

  1. ““The shipowners stress the consensual nature of the clause, arguing that a bill of lading is but a contract. But that is so at most in name only; the clause, as we are told, is now in practically all bills of lading issued by steamship companies doing business to and from the United States. Obviously the individual shipper has no opportunity to repudiate the document agreed upon by the trade, even if he has actually examined it and all of its twenty-eight lengthy paragraphs, of which this clause is No. 9. This lack of equality of bargaining power has long been recognized in our law; and stipulations for unreasonable exemption of the carrier have not been allowed to stand.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““(8) Any clause, covenant, or agreement in a contract of carriage relieving the carrier or the ship from liability for loss or damage to or in connection with the goods, arising from negligence, fault, or failure in the duties and obligations provided in this section, or lessening such liability otherwise than as provided in this chapter, shall be null and void and of no effect. A benefit of insurance in favor of tlie carrier, or similar clause, shall be deemed to be a clause relieving the carrier from liability.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. ““(2) Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be responsible for loss or damage arising or resulting from— “(a) Act, neglect, or default of the master, mariner, pilot, or the servants of the carrier in the navigation or in the management of the ship.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.