Street v. The Progreso’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. ““It may be taken as settled that ‘detention at quarantine’ is fairly included in the scope of that clause in this charter party which has reference to the ‘restraints of princes, rulers and people.’ Quarantine regulations and health laws, so called, although often affecting in their operation a direct and palpable regulation of commerce, are constantly made and prescribed by states, and even by local municipal corporations, and pass everywhere, unchallenged, as the result of a legitimate exercise of that police power which resides in sovereignty. Such regulations would be worthless unless the enforcement were sure; and such certainty of enforcement is attained by virtue of the power of the people, as exhibited and exercised through their governmental agents. It follows, then, that enforced obedience to lawfully-prescribed quarantine regulations is a ‘restraint’ of natural liberty of action devised by and proceeding from the ‘people.’ The Progreso was therefore clearly entitled to the benefit of this exception as a valid excuse for her default in performance of those terms and conditions of her contract, which the quarantine regulations at Charleston deprived her of ability to perform.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tweedie Trading Co. v. George D. Emery Co.

2. ““Tlie obligation of that contract was inviolable. It could neither be altered nor amended save by mutual consent of the parties interested. The demand made on behalf of the ship while she was lying in the port of Boston upon the charterers, to declare, then and there, their option, was wholly unwarranted by the contract. To have yielded to such demand, and to have declared their option, would have been an assent by them to a material and substantial alteration of the contract in an "important particular. They were clearly Justified in refusing such assent, and in standing by the terms of the charter-party. That charter party was still in force, and the only legitimate act for the ship was to proceed under it to Charleston, and tender herself, on arrival; ready -to load. Nothing short of that would excuse.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Karran v. Peabody