Barrett v. Van Pelt’s Empirical Analysis
268 U.S. 85 · 1925
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 6 district · 56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 173 later decisions (31 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. (1989), Helvering v. New York Trust Co. (1934)
47 federal appellate · 6 district · 56 state decisions — followed in 19 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 Territory of Hawaii v. Osaki Mankichi · Oates v. National Bank · Stewart v. Kahn · People ex rel. Attorney General v. Utica Insurance
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 173 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Provided further, That it shall be unlawful for any such common carrier to provide by rule, contract, regulation, or otherwise a shorter period for giving notice of claims than ninety days and for the filing of claims for a shorter period than four months, and for the institution of suits than two years: Provided, however, That if the loss or damage, or injury complained of was due to delay or damage while being loaded or unloaded, or damaged in transit by carelessness or negligence, then no notice of claim nor filing of claim shall be required as a condition predecent to recovery.” 49 USCA sec. 20, par. 11 note.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Except where the loss, damage or injury complained of is due to delay or damage while being loaded or unloaded, or damaged in transit by carelessness or negligence as conditions precedent to recovery claims must be made in writing to the originating or delivering carrier within four months after delivery of the property or, in case of failure to make delivery, then within four months after a reasonable time for delivery has elapsed; and suits for loss, damage, or delay shall be instituted only within two years and one day after delivery of the property or, in case of failure to make delivery, then within two years and one day after a reasonable time for delivery has elapsed."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““No notice of claim having been given, and no claim having been filed, as required by the uniform express receipt, it was incumbent upon the. respondent to show loss, damage, or injury due to delay by carelessness or negligence of the company.””
2 later decisions 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.