Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 277 U.S. 66 - Compania De Navegacion Interior v. Fireman's Fund Ins Co Same

Compania De Navegacion Interior v. Fireman's Fund Ins Co Same’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
5
states following
March 2008
most recently cited

1 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently March 2008 · most notably 144 F. Supp. 662 - Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. T. L. James & Co. (1956), 114 F. Supp. 713 - Bisso v. Inland Waterways Corp. (1953)

1 district · 5 state decisions

8019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Steamer Syracuse · Oliver and Daniel Garrison v. The Memphis Insurance Company · 9 E.H. Smith 516 - Thebaud v. . Great Western Ins. Co. · Farmers' Feed Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America · Farmers' Feed Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America

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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ * * * What does ‘seaworthy’ mean in the implied or expressed warranty to which the insured is to be held? “Arnould on Marine Insurance, vol. II (10th English Ed.) says: “ ‘Sec. 710. It is obvious that there can be no fixed and positive standard of seaworthiness, but that it must vary, with the varying exigencies of mercantile enterprise. “The ship,” said Lord Cairns, “should be in a condition to encounter whatever perils of the sea a ship of that kind, and laden in that way, may be fairly expected to encounter”' on the voyage. Steel v. State Line S. S. Co. (1877) [L.R.] 3 App.Cas. 72, 77 [4 Eng.Rul.Cas. 697]. * * * “ ‘Again the class of vessel may be such as will not admit of being put into that condition of seaworthiness requisite in ordinary cases for the contemplated voyage. The effect of this is not to dispense with the implied warranty of seaworthiness, but to accommodate the 'warranty to what is reasonably practicable in the particular case. * * * ’ ””
    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.