National Railroad Passenger Corporation Csx v. Rountree Transport and Rigging Inc Woko’s Empirical Analysis
286 F.3d 1233 · 2002
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably Cuddeback v. Florida Board of Education (2004), American Home Assur. v. NAT. RR CORP. (2005)
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
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.
Relationships
Relies on Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Myers · Fabre v. Marin · 374 So. 2d 490 - Houdaille Industries, Inc. v. Edwards · 393 So. 2d 545 - Mercury Motors Exp., Inc. v. Smith
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“GIVEN THAT KISSIMMEE UTILITY AUTHORITY, A MUNICIPAL AGENCY UNDER FLORIDA LAW, AGREED BY CONTRACT TO INDEMNIFY A PRIVATE PARTY, IS THE AGREEMENT CONTROLLED BY THE RESTRICTIONS ON WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FOUND IN FLORIDA STATUTE § 768.28? IS THE INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT INSTEAD CONTROLLED BY THE RULE FOR BREACH-OF-CONTRACT ACTIONS ENUNCIATED IN PAN-AM TOBACCO CORP. V. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 471 So.2d 4 (Fla.198[4])? IF PAN-AM APPLIES, DOES A MUNICIPAL AGENCY LIKE KISSIMMEE UTILITY AUTHORITY LOSE THE PROTECTION OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ONLY IF IT HAS SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENTS, OR IS IT SUFFICIENT THAT THE AGENCY MORE GENERALLY HAS STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH PRIVATE PARTIES?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“One who employs an independent contractor to do work which the employer should recognize as likely to create during its progress a peculiar risk of physical harm to others unless special precautions are taken, is subject to liability for physical harm caused to them by the failure of the contractor to exercise rea sonable care to take such precautions, even though the employer has provided for such precautions in the contract or otherwise.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]here was no easily ascertainable, out-of-pocket amount that [the insurer] could point to as a dispositive measure of [its insured's] loss. It follows the district court did not err in treating the damages incurred by [the insured] as unascertainable and speculative before the time of final judgment, and thus in refusing to grant prejudgment interest to [the insurer].”
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.