Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 273 U.S. 207 - Hartford Accident Indemnity Co of Hartford v. Southern Pac Co

Hartford Accident Indemnity Co of Hartford v. Southern Pac Co’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

80
cited by 80 later decisions
3
states following
September 2014
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 19 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently September 2014 · most notably Saskatchewan Government Insurance Office v. Spot Pack, Inc. (1957), Mandell and Wright v. Thomas (1969)

6 federal appellate · 19 district · 3 state decisions

170193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on The Oregon · The Hamilton · Providence Co v. Hill Manuf'G · La Bourgogne · Butler v. Boston & Savannah Steamship 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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It is quite evident from these cases that this court has by its rules and decisions given the statute a very broad and equitable construction for the purpose of carrying out its purpose, and for facilitating a settlement of the whole controversy over such losses as are comprehended within it, and that all the ease with which rights can be adjusted in equity is intended to be given to the proceeding. It is the administration of equity in an admiralty court. * * * The proceeding partakes in a way of the features of a bill to enjoin the multiplicity of suits, a bill in the nature of an inter-pleader, and a creditor’s bill. It looks to a complete and just disposition of a many-cornered controversy”.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It is quite evident from this that the stipulation under rule 54 et seq., is to be treated as a substitute for the vessel itself for all claims that may normally arise out of the character of litigation carried on under such rules. That litigation as we have seen may properly be carried to a complete settlement of all claims, without regard to whether the prayer for limitation of liability is denied or not;”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the great object of the statute was to encourage shipbuilding and to induce the investment of money in this branch of industry by limiting the venture of those who build the ships to the loss of the ship itself or her freight then pending, in cases of damage or wrong happening, without the privity, or knowledge of the shipowner, and by the fault or neglect of the master or other persons on board.”
    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.