Custave Jahn v. Steamship Folmina’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 4 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently April 1989 · most notably United States v. Mayer (1914), United States v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. (1960)
12 federal appellate · 4 district · 12 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on The Edwin Morrison Bradley Fertilizer Co v. Lavender · Tristram Clark v. Nathaniel Barnwell · Liverpool Steam Co v. Phenix Ins Co · The G. R. Booth · Propeller Niagara v. Cordes
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It was long since settled in Clark v. Barnwell, 12 How. 272 , that where goods are received in good order on board of a vessel under a bill of lading agreeing to deliver them, at the termination of the voyage, in like good order and condition, and the goods are damaged on the voyage, in a proceeding to recover for the breach of the contract of affreightment, after the amount of damage has been established, the burden lies upon the carrier to show that it was occasioned by one of the perils for which he was not responsible.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Of course, where goods are delivered in a damaged condition plainly caused by breakage, rust, or decay, their condition brings them within an exception exempting from that character of loss, as the very fact of the nature of the injury shows the damage to be prima facie within the exception, and hence the burden is upon the shipper to establish that the goods are removed from its operation because of the negligence of the carrier.””
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.