Cullen Fuel Co. v. W. E. Hedger, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
290 U.S. 82 · 1933
Citation profile
53 federal appellate · 22 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 172 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2010 · most notably Coryell v. Phipps (1943), Kinsman Transit Company Steamer Macgilvray Shiras Steamer Michael Tewksbury (1964)
53 federal appellate · 22 district · 2 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
reviewedThe Cullen No. 32 (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Luckenbach v. W. J. McCahan Sugar Refining Co. · The Caledonia · The Southwark · The Carib Prince · Pendleton v. Benner Line
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 172 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We pass, without discussion, the contentions that the court below erred in its rulings that the owner's contract was personal and that the respondent as bailee of the cargo was entitled to recover from the charterer, as we are of opinion that both points were correctly decided (The Benjamin Noble [D.C.], 232 F. 382; Id. (C.C.A.) 224 F. 95; Capitol Transportation Co. v. Cambria Steel Co., supra [ 249 U.S. 334 , 39 S.Ct. 292, 63 L.Ed. 631]; Pendleton v. Benner Line, supra, [pages] 355-356 [of 246 U.S., 38 S.Ct. 330, 62 L.Ed. 770]), and come to the question of petitioner's right of limitation notwithstanding the implied warranty of seaworthiness. The Capitol Transportation Case is an authority against the right. As appears by the opinion of the District Court (The Benjamin Noble, 232 F. 382), the contract of the owner in that case was oral and no express warranty was given. 58 "We see no reason to restrict or modify the rule there announced. The warranty of seaworthiness is implied from the circumstances of the parties and the subject-matter of the contract and may be negatived only by express covenant. It is as much a part of the contract as any express stipulation. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. v. Penna. Coal Co., 8 Wall. 276, 288 [19 L.Ed. 349]; Grossman v. Schenker, 206 N.Y. 466, 469, 100 N.E. 39; United States v. [A.] Bentley & Sons Co. [D.C.], 293 F. 229.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“upon the ground that as the charter was the personal contract of the owner and included an implied warranty of seaworthiness the petitioner was precluded from the benefit of the limitation statutes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rowe v. Brooks
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.