Mellon National Bank & Trust Co. v. Sophie Lines, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
289 F.2d 473 · 1961
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 7 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Simmons v. King (1973), Carolina Casualty Insurance Company v. Insurance Company of North America T II Refrigerated Transport Co Inc (1979)
14 federal appellate · 7 district · 29 state decisions — followed in 16 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.
Relationships
Relies on American Trucking Ass'ns v. United States Eastern Motor Exp · Guilinger v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. · 52 F. Supp. 488 - Hodges v. Johnson · Ferguson v. Charis
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * obtaining the receipt called for by 207.4(7) (b) which latter reads: ‘ * * * When the possession by the authorized carrier ends, it or its employee or agent shall obtain from the owner of the equipment, or its regular employee or agent duly authorized to act for it a receipt specifically identifying the equipment and stating therein the date and the time of day possession thereof is taken.’ It failed to do this. * * * ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Appellant makes no mention of the Interstate Commerce Commission’s strict operational rules or any real suggestion of how their self-evident impact can possibly be avoided. It does insist that its major theme that what happened in the present instance is no different than “ * * * where a thief takes a truck from the possession of Turner Transfer, Inc. or Sophie Lines, Inc. and drives it in his own business.” Actually there is no true similarity. If it were shown that a thief had stolen the truck while it was being properly operated for Turner under the ICC Rules and thereafter was in an accident with it, of course there would be no conclusive presumption that the truck was on Turner’s business. But there was no theft. It was Turner’s conduct which allowed the truck to make the trip into Pennsylvania with its decals and its lease.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rodriguez v. Ager“It is understood that the leased equipment under this agreement is in the exclusive possession, control and use of the authorized carrier Lessee and that the Lessee assumes full responsibility in respect to the equipment it is operating, to the public, the shippers and the Interstate Commerce Commission.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Simmons v. King
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.