Great Lakes Transit Corporation v. Interstate Ss Co’s Empirical Analysis
301 U.S. 646 · 1937
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently March 2001 · most notably Texas Ass'n of Counties County Government Risk Management Pool v. Matagorda County (2001), Farr Man & Co., Inc. v. M/v Rozita, Etc., Appeal of Amstar Corporation, Intervening Appeal of Farr Man & Co., Inc., Amstar Corporation, Intervening v. M/v Rozita, Etc. (1990)
18 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 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
reviewedGreat Lakes Transit Corp. v. Interstate S. S. Co. (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Luckenbach v. W. J. McCahan Sugar Refining Co. · Phœnix Insurance v. Erie & Western Transportation Co. · Wager v. Providence Insurance · Standard Marine Ins Co v. Scottish Metropolitan Assur Co
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The underwriters seek to sustain the decree by invoking the doctrine of subrogation, but the equity of subrogation invests the underwriters with the rights of the assured against third persons [citations omitted], not with a right to override its own obligation to the assured. Thus, when a bill of lading provides that in a case of loss the carrier, if liable therefor, shall have the full benefit of any insurance effected upon the goods, the provision limits the right of subrogation of the insurer, upon payment to the shipper, to recover over against the carrier. [Citations omitted.] Such a clause giving the carrier the benefit of insurance effected by the shipper is valid “because the carrier might himself have insured against the loss, even though occasioned by his own negligence ; and if a shipper under a bill of lading containing this provision effects insurance and is paid the full amount of his loss, neither he nor the insurer can recover against the carrier.” Luckenbach v. W. J. McCahan Sugar Ref. Co., 248 U.S. 139 , 146, 39 S.Ct. 53 , 54, 63 L.Ed. 170 , 174, 1 A.L.R. 1522 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the equity of subrogation invests the underwriters with the rights of the assured against third persons, not with a right to override its own obligation to the assured.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“recover back from [their insured] what they have paid to it [and what] they had expressly agreed to pay to [it].”
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.