Davis v. John L. Roper Lumber Co.’s Empirical Analysis
269 U.S. 158 · 1925
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 4 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1992 · most notably Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Thompson Manufacturing Co. (1926), Chesapeake Ry Co v. A F Thompson Mag Co
9 federal appellate · 4 district · 24 state decisions — followed in 11 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 Georgia Florida Alabama Railway Company v. Blish Milling Company · New York Philadelphia Norfolk Railroad Company v. Peninsula Produce Exchange of Maryland · Barrett v. Van Pelt · Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Dettlebach · Michigan Cent Co v. Mark Owen & 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 58 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 fór a shorter period than four months, and for the institution of suits than two years: Provided, however, that if the loss,- damage, or injury complained of was due to delay or damage while being loaded or unloaded or damage in transit by carelessness' or negligence, then no notice of claim nor filing of claim shall be Required as- a condition precedent to recovery.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Section 10 of the Bills of Lading Act,which declares that a carrier delivering goods to any one not lawfully entitled to their possession shall be liable to any one having a right of property or possession in the goods, etc., does not excuse a shipper, whose goods were misdelivered, from compliance with a stipulation of his bill of lading relieving the carrier from liability if claim were not ■made within six months after a reasonable time for delivery had elapsed.” Id. Syllabus 2.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““1. A loss due to misdelivery of a shipment by the carrier is not included, as damage “in transit” or otherwise, within the classes of cases mentioned in the second proviso of the first Cummins Amendment, as to which classes 'it provides that no notice of claim nor filing of claim shall be required as a condition precedent to recovery.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.