Smith v. United Parcel Service’s Empirical Analysis
296 F.3d 1244 · 2002
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 49 U.S.C. § 14706 · 49 U.S.C. § 15103
Relies on Adams Express Co. v. Croninger · Georgia Florida Alabama Railway Company v. Blish Milling Company · New York Nh Hartford Co v. Nothnagle · Southeastern Express Co. v. Pastime Amusement Co. · New York Philadelphia Norfolk Railroad Company v. Peninsula Produce Exchange of Maryland
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“That the legislation supersedes all the regulations and policies of a particular state upon the same subject results from its general character. It embraces the subject of the liability of the carrier under a bill of lading which he must issue, and limits his power to exempt himself by rule, regulation, or contract. Almost every detail of the subject is covered so completely that there can be no rational doubt but that Congress intended to take possession of the subject, and supersede all state regulation with reference to it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“While we agree that situations may exist in which the Carmack Amendment does not preempt all state and common law claims ..., only claims based on conduct separate and distinct from the delivery, loss of, or damage to goods escape preemption.... In other words, separate and distinct conduct rather than injury must exist for a claim to fall outside the preemptive scope of the Carmack Amendment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Supreme Court of the United States has described the preemptive effect of the Carmack Amendment very broadly.”); Underwriters at Lloyds of London v. N. Am. Van Lines, 890 F.2d 1112, 1116 (10th Cir.1989) (”
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.