Boston v. Piper’s Empirical Analysis
246 U.S. 439 · 1918
Citation profile
72 federal appellate · 9 district · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 226 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2010 · most notably Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Elmore & Stahl (1964), New York Nh Hartford Co v. Nothnagle (1953)
72 federal appellate · 9 district · 58 state decisions — followed in 18 states
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 Adams Express Co. v. Croninger · Hart v. Pennsylvania Railroad · Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Carl · Missouri Kansas Texas Railway Company v. Harriman Brothers · Boston & Maine Railroad v. Hooker
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 226 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While this provision was in the bill of lading, the form of which was filed with the railroad company's tariffs with the Interstate Commerce Commission, it gains nothing from that fact. The legal conditions and limitations in the carrier's bill of lading duly filed with the Commission are binding until changed by that body (Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Carl, 227 U.S. 639 , 654, 33 S.Ct. 391, 57 L.Ed. 683); but not so of conditions and limitations which are, as is this one, illegal, and consequently void.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Carmack Amendment ([34 Stat. at L. 595, chap. 3591, § 7] Comp. Stat. 1916, §§ 8604a, 8804aa) requires the initial carrier to issue a bill of lading, and carriers are obliged to carry the articles shipped at the rates fixed in the published tariffs. Many decisions of this court have held that the carrier may offer to the shipper and the shipper may be bound by a contract which limits recovery to a valuation declared by the shipper in consideration of the reduced rate for the carriage of the freight. This rule was stated in an early case arising after the passage of the Carmack Amendment. Adams Exp. Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491, 509, 510 , 57 L. Ed. 314, 321, 322 , 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 257, 33 S. Ct. 148 , and has been frequently reiterated since. “In the cases in which the recovery for the lesser valuation has been affirmed, the shipper was offered an opportunity to recover a greater sum than the declared value upon paying a higher rate to the carrier. The shipper was offered alternative recoveries based upon different valuations upon the payment of different rates, and was held bound by the one chosen. Such contracts of shipment this court has held not to be in contravention of the settled principles of the common law preventing a carrier from contracting against liability for losses resulting from its own negligence, and are lawful limitations upon the amount of recovery binding upon the shipper upon principles of estoppel.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[S]o long as the limitation of liability was the result of a “fair, open, just and reasonable agreement” between carrier and shipper, entered into by the shipper “for the purpose of obtaining the lower of two or more rates of charges proportioned to the amount of risk,” ... and the shipper was given “the option of higher recovery upon paying a higher rate,” ... the agreement was enforceable at common law.”
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.