Wallace v. Thames & Mersey Ins.’s Empirical Analysis
22 F. 66 · 1884
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 1916
2 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Tilton v. Cofield · Isaac Bradlie v. The Maryland Insurance Company · The Patapsco Insurance Company v. John Southgate · McAndrews v. Thatcher · Patapsco Insurance v. Southgate
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the loss is partial only, then the expenses incurred are to be borne 'by each in proportion to the interests covered by the policy and those at the risk of the owners. But if the loss, under the terms of the policy, is a total loss, whether actual or constructive, any expenditures made by either constitute a part of the loss, and, as by the abandonment the whole interest in the subject of the insurance vests in the insurer, the whole expense falls upon him, without recourse upon the insured.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The right of abandonment is made to depend upon the result, and not upon a calculation of probabilities.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.