Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cushing’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
249 federal appellate · 42 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 601 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2024 · most notably Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co. (1959), Wilburn Boat Company v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company (1955)
249 federal appellate · 42 district · 29 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
reviewedCushing v. Maryland Cas. Co. (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1012 (§ 2 of the McCarran-Ferguson Act)
Relies on Gibbons v. Ogden · United Public Workers of America v. Mitchell · Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell · Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen · United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n
Cited together with Lake Tankers Corp. v. Henn · Wilburn Boat Company v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company · Langnes v. Green · Just v. Chambers · Olympic Towing Corp. v. Nebel Towing 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 601 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Judicial expansion of the Limited Liability Act at this date seems especially inappropriate. Many of the conditions in the shipping industry which induced the 1851 Congress to pass the Act no longer prevail. And later Congresses, when they wished to aid shipping, provided subsidies paid out of the public treasury rather than subsidies paid by injured persons.””
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(a) The liability of the owner of any vessel, whether American or foreign, for any embezzlement, loss, or destruction by any person of any property, goods, or merchandise shipped or put on board of such vessel, or for any loss, damage, or injury by collision, or for any act, matter, or thing, loss, damage, or forfeiture, done, occasioned, or incurred, without the privity or knowledge of such owner or owners, shall not, except in the cases provided for in subsection (b) of this section, exceed the amount or value of the interest of such owner in such vessel, and her freight then pending.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““Suffice it to say that even the most cursory reading of the legislative history of this enactment makes it clear that its exclusive purpose was to counteract any adverse effect that this Court’s decision in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, 322 U.S. 533 [ 64 S.Ct. 1162 , 88 L.Ed. 1440 ], might be found to have on State regulation of insurance. The House Report on the Bill as enacted is decisive: “ ‘It is not the intention of Congress in the enactment of this legislation to clothe the States with any power to regulate or tax the business of insurance beyond that which they had been held to possess prior to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Southeastern Underwriters Association case.’ H. R.Rep. No. 143, 79th Cong., 1st Sess. 3.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.