Morris & Co. v. Skandinavia Insurance’s Empirical Analysis
279 U.S. 405 · 1929
Citation profile
63 federal appellate · 19 district · 69 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 240 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2018 · most notably Baldwin v. Ionwa State Traveling Men's Ass'n (1931), Home Ins Co v. Dick (1930)
63 federal appellate · 19 district · 69 state decisions — followed in 19 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
reviewedMorris & Co. v. Skandinavia Ins. (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on General Inv Co v. Lake Shore & M S Ry Co · Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co. v. McKibbin · Simon v. Southern Railway Co. · Southern Pac Co v. Denton · Old Wayne Mutual Life Ass'n v. McDonough
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 240 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Reinsurance involves no transaction or privity between the reinsurer and those originally assured. The lower courts rightly held that the making of the reinsurance compacts in New York between respondent and insurers of property in Mississippi was not the doing of business in that state. And, as its consent to be sued there cannot be implied from any transactions within the state, there is no jurisdiction, unless respondent’s authorization in respect of service is broad enough to extend to this case. Phila. & Reading R. Co. v. McKibbin, 243 U.S. 264 , 37 S.Ct. 280 , 61 L.Ed. 710 . “The policy sued on was issued and the loss occurred in South America. The importation of such controversies would not serve any interest of Mississippi. The purpose of state statutes requiring the appointment by foreign corporations of agents upon whom process may be served is primarily to subject them to the jurisdiction of local courts in controversies growing out of transactions within the state. [Citing cases.] The language of the appointment and of the statute under which it was made plainly implies that the scope of the agency is intended to be so limited. By the terms of both, the authority continues only so long as any liability of the company remains outstanding in Mississippi. No decision of the state Supreme Court supports the construction for which petitioner contends. And, in the absence of language compelling it, such a statute ought not to be construed to impose upon the courts of t”
6 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.