Millers' National Insurance Company, Chicago, Illinois, and Cross-Appellees v. The Wichita Flour Mills Company, and Cross-Appellant. The Wichita Flour Mills Company, and Cross-Appellant v. Millers' National Insurance Company, Chicago, Illinois, and Cross-Appellees’s Empirical Analysis
257 F.2d 93 · 1958
Citation profile
64 federal appellate · 1 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 97 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2014 · most notably Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno (1990), Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1998)
64 federal appellate · 1 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 12 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 United States v. Johnson · Ex Parte Barber · United States v. F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co. · Francis v. Southern Pacific Co. · Transportation Line v. Hope
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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“interest shall be calculated from the date of the entry of the judgment”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The insurance companies assert that McDonald was improperly permitted to invade and usurp the province of the jury in that the sole issue was whether there was an explosion and McDonald was allowed to testify that there was an explosion. The controlling rule as stated by the United States Supreme Court is that where the matter under inquiry is properly the sub* ject of expert testimony, it is no objection that the opinion sought to be elicited is upon the issue to be decided. That rule has been followed in this circuit and applied in two recent decisions.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lopez v. Heesen“such matters as the presence of voids in stored wheat, loading and explosive pressures on the bottom, center, and top of a tank filled with wheat, and the transmission and effect of an explosive force. There was no claim that the conditions and situations involved in the experiments were identical or substantially similar to those existing in the plaintiff's elevator at the time of the breakout.”
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.