Farrell Lines Inc. v. Columbus Cello-Poly Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably 237 F. Supp. 2d 394 - Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Harrods, Ltd. (2002), Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara (2007)
1 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 28 U.S.C. § 2283
Relies on Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · Aetna Life Ins Co of Hartford Conn v. Haworth · M/s Bremen v. Zapata off-Shore Company · Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co. · Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The function of the 'Clause Paramount’ is to specify the law to be applied to the contract of carriage.” Farrell Lines, Inc. v. Columbus Cello-Poly Corp., 32 F.Supp.2d 118, n. 4 (S.D.N.Y.1997), aff 'd sub nom. Farrell Lines, Inc. v. Ceres Terminals Inc., 161 F.3d 115 (2d Cir.1998) (quoting 2 Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Admiralty and Maritime Law § 10-11 at 51 (2d ed.1994)). 2 .COGSA itself also limits a carrier’s liability. See 46 U.S.C.App. § 1304(5) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[irrespective of what law an Italian court would apply, [the court] must apply COG-SA. The bill of lading did not incorporate the Hague-Visby Rules, the laws in force in Italy; rather, the owner, shipper, and carrier, pursuant to the Bill of lading agreed that COGSA would govern, and federal choice-of-law rules require that this choice would be enforced.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“consignee and holder ... agree[d] that any suits against the Carrier shall be brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.”
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.