Foust v. Munson Steamship Lines’s Empirical Analysis
299 U.S. 77 · 1936
Citation profile
146 federal appellate · 15 district · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 376 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2016 · most notably Thompson v. Magnolia Petroleum Co. (1940), Aetna Ins Co Kennedy Bogash Springfield Fire Marine Ins Co v. Same Liverpool & London & Globe Ins Co Limited (1937)
146 federal appellate · 15 district · 35 state decisions — followed in 13 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
reviewedthe decision below (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · Gunning v. Cooley · Dimick v. Schiedt · Langnes v. Green · Panama Co v. Johnson
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 376 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“entitled to maintain an action against the insurer for the amount of his judgment but not exceeding the amount of insurer's liability to the debtor under the policy.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Petitioner is the administrator of the estate of Coy E. Foust and, February 1, 1934, commenced an action at law under section 33 of the Merchant Marine Act of [June 5], 1920 [ 46 U.S.C.A. § 688 ] in the United States court for the Southern District of New York against the Munson Steamship Lines. His complaint alleges that, February 27, 1930, while deceased was at work for defendant as seaman on its steamship Mundelta, his death was caused by defendant’s negligence and, for the benefit of petitioner as surviving father, prays damages in the sum of $15,000. Defendant’s answer denies the negligence charged against it and alleges decedent’s death was caused by risks assumed and his own negligence. • “June 11, 1934, defendant filed its petition for reorganization under section 77B of the Bankruptcy Act. The petition did not refer to the administrator’s claim or to the action brought for its enforcement. Two days after it was filed, the court entered a decree that approved the petition as properly filed, declared the debtor unable to meet its debts as they mature, determined it required relief under section 77B, appointed trustees to take and operate its property and, inter alia, enjoined the institution or prosecution of any action at law against the debtor. * * * “Section 77B gives to the District Judge power, to be exerted in accordance with its provisions, to alter the rights of creditors or any class of them. Subdivision (b) (10), § 77B ( 11 U.S.C.A. § 207 (b) (10), declares ”
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.