Spencer Kellogg & Sons, Inc. v. Hicks’s Empirical Analysis
285 U.S. 502 · 1932
Citation profile
194 federal appellate · 42 district · 47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 464 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2009 · most notably Coryell v. Phipps (1943), Bradford Elec. Light Co. v. Clapper (1932)
194 federal appellate · 42 district · 47 state decisions — followed in 11 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
reviewedSalmon v. Austro-American Stave & Lumber Co. (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen · Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart · Chelentis v. Luckenbach Steamship Co. · Western Fuel Co. v. Garcia · Atlantic Transport Company of West Virginia v. Frank Imbrovek
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 464 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There is no analogy between such a situation and that presented in the cited cases where the emergency must be met by the master alone. In these there is no opportunity of consultation or cooperation or of bringing the proposed action of the master to the owner's knowledge. The latter must rely upon the master's obeying rules and using reasonable judgment.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In view of the weather conditions and the observation of ice in the river some days prior to the accident by several witnesses, amongst them one of Stover's own subordinates, he should not have rested upon the mere instruction to the master not to run through ice. Before allowing the ferriage operation he was under obligation to assure himself by inquiries or by personal inspection that the `Linseed King' should not incur the hazard of colliding, as she did, with ice floes in the river.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) The liability of the owner of any vessel, whether American or foreign, for any embezzlement, loss, or destruction by any person of any property, goods, or merchandise shipped or put on board of such vessel, or for any loss, damage, or injury by collision, or for any act, matter, or thing, loss, damage, or forfeiture, done, occasioned, or incurred, without the privity or knowledge of such owner or owners, shall not, except in the cases provided for in subsection (b) of this section, exceed the amount or value of the interest of such owner in such vessel, and her freight then pending.”
2 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.