Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 38 U.S. 387 - The New England Insurance Company v. The Brig Sarah

The New England Insurance Company v. The Brig Sarah’s Empirical Analysis

38 U.S. 387 · 1839

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
January 1978
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1978

4 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions

50183918401850186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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

Relies on The General Smith · Clark's Executors v. Van Riemsdyk · Avery v. Inhabitants of Tyringham · Patapsco Insurance v. Southgate · United States v. Barber

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

  1. ““All will agree that the master must act in good faith, exercise his best discretion for the benefit of all concerned, and that it can only be done upon the compulsion of a necessity, to be determined in each case by the actual and impending peril to which the vessel is exposed.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Nor can the necessity for a sale be denied when the peril, in the opinion of those capable of forming a judgment, makes a loss probable, though the vessel may in a short time afterwards be got off and put afloat. It is true, the opinion or judgment of competent persons may be falsified by the event, and their judgment may be shown to have been erroneous by the better knowledge of other persons, showing it was probable that the vessel could have been extricated from her peril without great injury or incurring great expense; and the master’s incompetency to form a judgment or to act with a proper discretion in the case may be shown. But from the mere fact of the vessel having been extricated from her peril no presumption can be raised of the master’s incompetency, or of that of his advisers.””
    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.