Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 302 U.S. 556 - Lanasa Fruit Steamship & Importing Co. v. Universal Insurance

Lanasa Fruit Steamship & Importing Co. v. Universal Insurance’s Empirical Analysis

302 U.S. 556 · 1938

Citation profile

155
cited by 155 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
July 2013
most recently cited

57 federal appellate · 18 district · 31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 155 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2013 · most notably Standard Oil Co of New Jersey v. United States (1950), The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Harry Oliver Linard, an Underwriter at Lloyd's, and Vainqueur Corporation, and Cross-Claimant (1974)

57 federal appellate · 18 district · 31 state decisions

360193819401950196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedLanasa Fruit Steamship & Importing Co. v. Universal Ins. (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Liverpool & Great Western Steam Co. v. Phenix Insurance · Insurance Company v. Boon · Richelieu & Ontario Navigation Co. v. Boston Marine Insurance · John Peters v. The Warren Insurance Company

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 155 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “cause which is truly proximate is that which is proximate in efficiency”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[I]f the [ship] had not been damaged by reason of sea perils, the potatoes would have arrived sound. The proximate cause of the loss, therefore, was the sea peril, because it was the efficient dominant cause which, although incidentally involving delay, placed the cargo in such a condition that, because of inevitable deterioration or decay, it could not be reshipped and carried to its destination.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.