Chicago Milwaukee St Paul Pac Co v. Acme Fast Freight’s Empirical Analysis
336 U.S. 465 · 1949
Citation profile
76 federal appellate · 21 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 227 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr (1967), Colligan v. Activities Club of New York, Ltd. (1971)
76 federal appellate · 21 district · 32 state decisions — followed in 11 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
reviewedAcme Fast Freight, Inc. v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co. (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Johnson v. Stevenson · Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Riverside Mills · The New Jersey Steam Navigation Company v. The Merchants' Bank of Boston · Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co. v. Rankin · United States v. Chicago Heights Trucking 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 227 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the way the party’s obligation is expressed in documents pertaining to the agreement, although the party’s self-description is not always controlling; (2) the history of dealings between the parties; (3) issuance of a bill of lading, although the fact that a party issues a document entitled “bill of lading” is not in itself determinative; (4) how the party made its profit, in particular, whether the party acted as “agent of the shipper ... procuring the transportation by carrier and handling the details of shipment” for fees “which the shipper paid in addition to the freight charges of the carrier utilized for the actual transportation.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Of course shippers by freight forwarder have for many years been permitted to sue underlying carriers for loss or damage occasioned by the latter. (Citation omitted). Great Northern Ry. Co. v. O’Connor (1914) 232 U.S. 508 [ 34 S.Ct. 380 , 58 L.Ed. 703 ], [Citation omitted]. The theory of these actions was that the shipper is the undisclosed principal of its agent, the forwarder, in the latter’s contract with the carrier.” Id.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“under the Carmack Amendment, plaintiff was required to show that Hub City did each of the following: 11 (A) assembles and consolidates, or provides for assembling and consolidating, shipments and performs or provides for break-bulk and distribution operations of the shipments; 12 (B) assumes responsibility for the transportation from the place of receipt to the place of destination; and 13 (C) uses for any part of the transportation a carrier subject to jurisdiction under this subtitle. 14 49 U.S.C. § 13102(8). With respect to clause (A) above, the Supreme Court has held that the term”
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.