James McLanahan Wilhelmus Bogart and John Joseph Coiron v. The Universal Insurance Company’s Empirical Analysis
26 U.S. 170 · 1828
Citation profile
96 federal appellate · 22 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 209 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2015 · most notably United States v. Gaudin (1995), The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman (1969)
96 federal appellate · 22 district · 25 state decisions — followed in 13 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 Livingston and Gilchrist v. The Maryland Insurance Company · The Maryland Insurance Company v. Ruden's Administrator · King v. The Delaware Insurance Company
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 209 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The contract of [marine] insurance has been said to be a contract uberrimae fidei ....”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““That the time of sailing is often very material to the risk cannot be denied.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A suggestion has been thrown out at the bar that this instruction was not intended to be positive and absolute, but merely advisory to the jury, that it was not meant to take away the right of the jury to decide freely on the facts; but merely to offer for their consideration those views which the court had arrived at, and which it might at all times properly suggest to the jury. It is doubtless within the province of a court, in the exercise of its discretion, to sum up the facts in the case to the jury, and submit them, with the inferences of law dedueible therefrom, to the free judgment of the jury. But care should be taken in all such cases to separate the law from the facts, and to leave the latter, in unequivocal terms, to the jury, as their true and peculiar province. We do not, however, understand that the present instruction was, in fact, or was intended to be, merely in the nature of advice to the jury. It is couched in the most absolute terms, and imposed an obligation upon the jury to find a verdict for the defendants. It assumed there were no disputable facts or inferences proper for the consideration of the jury upon the merits; and that upon the unquestioned facts the plaintiffs had no legal right of recovery.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. May v. United States
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.