Smith v. Whitmore’s Empirical Analysis
270 F.2d 741 · 1959
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Poleto v. Consolidated Rail Corp. (1987), Carolina Casualty Insurance Company v. Insurance Company of North America T II Refrigerated Transport Co Inc (1979)
13 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · United States v. Yellow Cab Co. · Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Rosenthal · Sattelberger v. Telep · Hartford Electric Light Co. v. Federal Power Commission
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The quiver of the judgment should contain but two arrows--one directed to the liability of the defendant and one to the existence of the right of contribution.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is adjudged that the defendant X and the defendant Y are joint tortfeasors and that the right of contribution exists between the said defendants and that hereafter either defendant may have judgment against the other for any amount which he proves he has paid to the plaintiff in excess of his pro-rata share of the amount of the plaintiff’s judgment.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Brown v. Cranston, 2 Cir., 1942, 132 F.2d 631, 633-634 , 148 A.L.R. 1178 , certiorari denied sub nom. Cranston v. Thompson, 1943, 319 U.S. 741 , 63 S.Ct. 1028 , 87 L.Ed. 1698 , it was held in a contribution action that Rule 14 cannot be construed “* * * as to give the defendant a recovery which could not be obtained through any remedy available in the New York State Courts.” Professor Moore in his discussion of Rule 14 in 3 Moore’s Federal Practice Para. 14.03 points out that the Rule “creates no substantive rights”; and “does not ‘abridge, enlarge, nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant’ ”. He specifically states that “The Rule does not establish a right of reimbursement, indemnity nor contribution. * * * ” The foregoing is in consonance with the statute authorizing the Supreme Court to promulgate the Federal Rules wherein it is stated that “Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. * * *” 28 U.S.C. § 2072 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brooks v. Brown
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.