Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint’s Empirical Analysis
275 U.S. 303 · 1927
Citation profile
316 federal appellate · 76 district · 263 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,045 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2022 · most notably East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc. (1986), Ultramares Corp. v. Touche (1931)
316 federal appellate · 76 district · 263 state decisions — followed in 30 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedFlint v. Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co. · The Conqueror · German Alliance Insurance Company v. Home Water Supply Company · Lawrence v. . Fox
Cited together with East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc. · Askew v. American Waterways Operators, Inc. · German Alliance Insurance Company v. Home Water Supply Company · Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Louisiana ex rel. Guste v. M/V Testbank
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 1,045 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[N]o authority need be cited to show that, as a general rule, at least, a tort to the person or property of one man does not make the tort-feasor liable to another merely because the injured person was under a contract with that other, unknown to the doer of the wrong.”
32 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a tort to the person or property of one man does not make the tortfeasor liable to another merely because the injured person was under a contract with that other, unknown to the doer of the wrong”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage“it is recognized as an exception to the general principle, which proceeds on the legal and natural presumption that a contract is only intended for the benefit of those who made it. Before a stranger can avail himself of the exceptional privilege of suing for a breach of an agreement to which he is not a party, he must, at least, show that it was intended for his direct benefit.”
4 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.