Day v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
528 F.2d 31 · 1975
Citation profile
58 federal appellate · 10 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 132 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2018 · most notably Air France v. Saks (1985), McCarthy v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. (1995)
58 federal appellate · 10 district · 5 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on Missouri v. Holland · Factor v. Laubenheimer · Cook v. United States · Maximov v. United States · Pigeon River Improvement, Slide & Boom Co. v. Charles W. Cox, Ltd.
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 132 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The carrier shall be liable for damage sustained in the event of the death or wounding of a passenger or any other bodily injury suffered by a passenger, if the accident which caused the damage so sustained took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he plaintiffs had already surrendered their tickets, passed through passport control, and entered the area reserved exclusively for those about to depart on international flights. They were assembled at the departure gate, virtually ready to proceed to the aircraft.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Those called upon to construe a treaty should ... strive to give the specific words of a treaty a meaning consistent with the genuine shared expectations of the contracting parties. These expectations can, of course, change over time. Conditions and new methods may arise not present at the precise moment of drafting.... The conduct of the parties subsequent to ratification of a treaty may, thus, be relevant in ascertaining the proper construction to accord the treaty’s various provisions. In divining the purposes of the Warsaw treaty, we find the adoption in 1966 of the Montreal Agreement particularly instructive. This Agreement did not alter the language of Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention. But it provides decisive evidence of the goals and expectations currently shared by the parties to the Warsaw Convention.”
4 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.