De Laval Turbine, Inc. v. West India Industries, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]t is well settled that in a non-jury case, an appellate court will not reverse on the basis of an erroneous admission of evidence unless (1) there is insufficient evidence other than the challenged evidence to support the district court's conclusion, or (2) the district court is induced by the challenged evidence to make an essential finding that it would not have made otherwise.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Meinhardt v. Unisys Corp. · United States v. Local 560 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, Salvatore Provenzano, President, Joseph Sheridan, Vice-President, Josephine Provenzano Septembre, Sec-Treasurer, J.W. Dildine, Recording Secretary, Thomas Reynolds, Sr., Trustee, Stanley Jaronko, Trustee, Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc., Salvatore Provenzano, Employee Trustee, Thomas Reynolds, Sr., Employee Trustee, Local 560 Officers and Employees Severance Pay Plan, Salvatore Provenzano, Trustee and Administrator, Josephine P. Septembre, Trustee and Administrator, Anthony Provenzano, Individually, Nunzio Provenzano, Individually, Stephen Andretta, Individually, Thomas Andretta, Individually, Gabriel Briguglio, Individually. United States of America v. Local 560 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, Salvatore Provenzano, President, Joseph Sheridan, Vice-President, Josephine Provenzano Septembre, Sec-Treasurer, J.W. Dildine, Recording Secretary, Thomas Reynolds, Sr., Trustee, Stanley Jaronko, Trustee, Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc., Salvatore Provenzano, Employee Trustee, Thomas Reynolds, Sr., Employee Trustee, Local 560 Officers and Employees Severance Pay Plan, Salvatore Provenzano, Trustee and Administrator, Josephine P. Septembre, Trustee and Administrator, Anthony Provenzano, Individually, Nunzio Provenzano, Individually, Stephen Andretta, Individually, Thomas Andretta, Individually, Gabriel Briguglio, Individually. Appeal of Local Union No. 560, Appeal of Salvatore Provenzano, Joseph Sheridan, Jay Dildine, Josephine Provenzano, Thomas Reynolds, Michael Sciarra and Stanley Jaronko

2. “[W]e deem the term “bailee” too general a category to support a limitation of liability. The mere fact that Catanach may fit within the descriptive term is not determinative. See Cabot Corporation v. S. S. Mormacscan, [ 441 F.2d 476 (2d Cir. 1971)] (denying a stevedore limited liability despite the fact that “carrier” was defined as “all persons rendering services in connection with performance of that contract”). Rather, there must be a specific link between the contract term and the party to be protected in order to satisfy the clarity requirement of Herd & Company v. Krawill Company. Absent such a link, courts cannot be confident that the contracting parties intended to extend COGSA protection. Given the substantial risks undertaken by a party who accedes to limitations of liability, we will not extend such limitations to third parties on the basis of mere speculation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. La Salle Machine Tool, Inc. v. Maher Terminals, Inc.

3. “While we recognize that evidence of prior dealings is generally admissible to explain the intent of contracting parties, we understand Herd & Company v. Krawill Machinery Corp., supra, to preclude reliance upon such evidence in this context. It is inconsistent to require a clear expression of intent on the one hand while on the other resorting to extrinsic sources — of which the contracting parties may or may not have actually been aware — to interpret the documents. If the negotiating parties do not limit the liability of third parties within the “four corners” of the documents, we will not recognize an extension of COGSA protection. Accordingly, we cannot treat as dispositive the district court’s findings of fact with regard to the prior practices of De Laval [the shipper].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Koppers Co., Inc. v. S/S DEFIANCE