Pendleton v. Benner Line’s Empirical Analysis
246 U.S. 353 · 1918
Citation profile
103 federal appellate · 54 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 260 later decisions (22 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2000 · most notably Coryell v. Phipps (1943), Luckenbach v. W. J. McCahan Sugar Refining Co. (1918)
103 federal appellate · 54 district · 7 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
reviewedLine v. Pendleton (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Wesley Richardson v. Judson Harmon · The Beaconsfield · Green v. Bogue · Great Lakes Towing Co. v. Mill Transp. Co.
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 260 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The contract was between human beings and the petitioner by his own act knowingly made himself a party to an express undertaking for the seaworthiness of the ship. That the statute does not limit liability for the personal acts of the owners done with, knowledge is established by Richardson v. Harmon, 222 U. S. 96 , 32 S. Ct. 27 , 56 L. Ed, 110 . It was said in that case, page 106 of 222 U. S., 32 S. Ct. 27, 56 L. Ed. 110 , that section 18 leaves the owner ‘liable for his own fault, neglect and contracts.’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“That the statute does not limit liability for the personal acts of the owners done with knowledge is established by Richardson v. Harmon, 222 U.S. 96 .... It was said in that case ... that section 18 leaves the owner ‘liable for his own fault, neglect and contracts.’ The principle was held to apply to contracts less personal that this [charter party] in Great Lakes Towing Co. v. Mill Transportation Co., 155 Fed. 11 ... and in The Loyal, 204 Fed. 930 .... We are not disposed to disturb the very strong and deliberate intimations of Richardson v. Harmon in their application to the present case. It is said that the owners did their best to make the vessel seaworthy and that if it was not so the failure was wholly without the privity or knowledge of the petitioner. But that is not the material question in the case of a warranty. Unless the petitioner can be discharged from his contract altogether he must answer for the breach whether he was to blame for it or not.”
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.