Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 483 F.2d 1044 - Millers Mutual Ins. v. Southern Railway Corp.

Millers Mutual Ins. v. Southern Railway Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

483 F.2d 1044 · 1973

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
1
states following
January 2017
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently January 2017

11 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

10019731980199020002010decided

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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Brady v. Southern Railway Co. · Sutton v. Duke · Secretary of Agriculture v. United States

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

  1. “'Car shall be inspected while empty and before each loading by carrier furnishing the equipment and, if necessary, properly cleaned and placed in good condition so that loss of or damage to freight may not result from defects in car, filth, waste, oil, grease or other substance or from anything liable to cause loss of or damage to freight; such inspection to be governed by the kind of freight to be loaded and the probability of loss or damage.... Carrier furnishing the equipment shall keep a permanent record showing where car was inspected, name of person making the inspection, condition of car, and extent of inspection at time of such inspection. When the physical facts developed by inspection at destination or enroute prove beyond a reasonable doubt that car was furnished in a defective, unclean, or otherwise unfit condition to transport the commodity without loss or damage, such facts shall render the origin or carrier furnishing the equipment responsible for the entire loss.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “we are inclined to think the Carmack Amendment preempts state remedies in the area that it covers,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “essentially adopts the common law of carriers,”
    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.