Tessler Brothers (b.c.) Ltd. v. Italpacific Line and Matson Terminals, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently July 2011 · most notably Henley Drilling Co. v. McGee (1994), Brown & Root, Inc. v. M/V Peisander (1981)
40 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 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.
Relationships
Relies on Shoup Voting Machine Corp. v. Datamedia Computer Service, Inc. · Hart v. Pennsylvania Railroad · Robert Herd Company v. Krawill Machinery Corporation · Sloan Shipyards Corporation v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation · New York Nh Hartford Co v. Nothnagle
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A significant restriction on a carrier’s right to limit liability to an amount less than the actual loss sustained is that the carrier must give the shipper ‘a fair opportunity to choose between higher or lower liability by paying a correspondingly greater or lesser charge. . . . ’ New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co. v. Nothnagle, 346 U.S. 128, 135 , 73 S.Ct. 986, 990 , 97 L.Ed. 1500 (1953); Sommer Corp. v. Panama Canal Co., 475 F.2d 292, 298 (5th Cir. 1973), and cases cited therein. Clause 18 of the bill of lading in question provides that the $500 limitation exists ‘unless the nature of the goods and a valuation higher than $500, shall have been declared in writing by the shipper upon delivery to the carrier and inserted in the bill of lading and extra freight paid if required. . . . ’ Section 4(5) of COGSA, to which the bill of lading is expressly subject, has a similar provision. “Tessler contends there is no evidence that the shipper was offered a choice of rates, one with the limitation and another without it. The provisions in the bill of lading and COGSA are prima facie evidence of the opportunity to avoid the limitation, however, and it is Tessler’s burden to prove that such an opportunity did not in fact exist. Petition of Isbrandtsen Co., 201 F.2d 281, 285 (2d Cir. 1953). Tessler did not carry this burden.””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“20. VALUATION. Carrier shall not be liable in any event for any loss, damage, misdelivery or delay with respect to the goods in an amount exceeding $500.00 lawful money of the United States per package, or in the case of goods not shipped in packages, per customary freight unit, unless the nature of the goods and a valuation thereof higher than $500.00 is declared in writing by Shipper on delivery of the goods to Carrier and inserted in the Bill of Lading and extra freight is paid thereon as required by the applicable tariff to obtain the benefit of such higher valuation.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to counteract the persistent efforts of carriers, who are the drafters of ocean bills of lading, to insert all embracing exceptions to liability”
3 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.