Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 465 F.2d 710 - Allstate Insurance Company v. Alterman Transport Lines, Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Consolidated Systems, Inc., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee. Allstate Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Alterman Transport Lines, Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Consolidated Systems, Inc., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee

Allstate Insurance Company v. Alterman Transport Lines, Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Consolidated Systems, Inc., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee. Allstate Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Alterman Transport Lines, Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Consolidated Systems, Inc., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee’s Empirical Analysis

465 F.2d 710 · 1972

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
July 1989
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 226 So. 2d 836 - Mims Crane Service, Inc. v. Insley Mfg. Corp. · 53 So. 2d 319 - Wilson v. Burke · 142 So. 2d 299 - Fontainebleau Hotel Corporation v. Postol · 156 So. 2d 672 - Fincher Motor Sales, Inc. v. Lakin

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

  1. ““Turning to the indemnification clause itself we find nothing in the language of 49 C.F.R. § 1057.4 (a)(4) which would prohibit two freely contracting parties from determining, as between themselves, which party will ultimately bear the cost of damages done to a third person. The only conceivable argument against such an arrangement would be that the regulation seeks to prevent indemnification on the theory that a trucking company, knowing it does not have to pay damages, might tend to be less careful in supervising and controlling the actions of its truck drivers. However, the same can be said of insurance coverage which the regulations obviously do not prohibit. We are of the opinion that had the I.C.C. intended to prevent indemnification between trucking companies it would have said so in precise terms.” Id. at 713 .”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It is understood that the leased equipment under this agreement is in the exclusive possession, control, and use of the authorized carrier Lessee [Ryder] and that the Lessee [Ryder] assumes full responsibility in respect to the equipment it is operating to the public, the shippers, and the INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.”
    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.