American Surety Co. v. Marotta’s Empirical Analysis
287 U.S. 513 · 1933
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 3 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 177 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably Foust v. Munson Steamship Lines (1936), Fidelity Trust Co. v. Union National Bank (1933)
42 federal appellate · 3 district · 34 state decisions — followed in 14 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
reviewedMarotta v. American Surety Co. of New York (from First Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Josiah Coder v. William Arts · Fraser v. Bentel · Yeend v. Weeks · Whitehouse v. Bolster
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 177 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[I]nclude' is frequently, if not generally used as a word of extension or enlargement rather than as one of limitation or enumeration.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Subject to the effect properly to be given to context, section 1 prescribes the constructions to put upon various words and phrases used in the Act. Some of the definitive clauses commence with ‘shall include’, others with ‘shall mean.’ The former is used in eighteen instances and the latter in nine instances, and in two both are used. When the section as a whole is regarded, it is evident that these verbs are not used synonymously or loosely but with discrimination and a purpose to give to each a meaning not attributable to the other. It is obvious that, in some instances at least, ‘shall include’ is used without implication that any exclusion is intended. Subsections (6) and (7), in each of which both verbs are employed, illustrate the use of ‘shall mean’ to enumerate and restrict and of ‘shall include’ to enlarge and extend. Subsection (17) declares ‘oath’ shall include affirmation. Subsection (19) declares ‘persons’ shall include corporations, officers, partnerships and women. Men are not mentioned. In these instances the verb is used to expand, not to restrict. It is plain that ‘shall include’ as used in subsection (9) when taken in connection with other parts of the section cannot reasonably be read to be the equivalent of ‘shall mean’ or ‘shall include only.’ ””
3 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.