Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
287 U.S. 170 · 1932
Citation profile
135 federal appellate · 15 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 266 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably Oyama v. State of California (1948), James J. Oppen, Arthur J. Luck and Glenn A. Henry v. Aetna Insurance Co., Union Oil Co. Of Calif. (1973)
135 federal appellate · 15 district · 22 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedBrooklyn Eastern Dist. Terminal v. United States (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on The Conqueror · Standard Oil Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. · Watts, Watts & Co. v. Unione Austriaca di Navigazione · the "Abbotsford"
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 266 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he question narrows itself to this, whether the full-time hire of an extra boat must be charged to the respondent as damage flowing from the collision when there was no need of such a boat to keep the business going, and none in fact was used or paid for. Is an award upon that basis either erroneous in law or extravagant in fact? Erroneous and extravagant we think it must be held to be. . . . Demurrage on the basis of the cost of a substitute, actual or supposititious, may be no more than fair indemnity when gains have been lost or enjoyment seriously disturbed. Demurrage on a like basis may be so extravagant as to outrun the bounds of reason when loss of profit has been avoided without the hire of a substitute and the disturbance of enjoyment has been slight or perhaps fanciful. . . .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the value of the use may be considered by the triers of the facts in fixing the recovery if there has been a substantial impairment of that enjoyment for which such vessels are maintained.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“has been a refusal to extend the [spare boat] doctrine to boats acquired and maintained for the general uses of the business.”
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.