Commonwealth Petrochemicals, Inc. v. S/S Puerto Rico’s Empirical Analysis
607 F.2d 322 · 1979
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently October 2006 · most notably Brown & Root, Inc. v. M/V Peisander (1981), Colgate Palmolive Company v. S/s Dart Canada & Lansdell Protective Agency Inc (1983)
18 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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 Reid v. Fargo · Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. SS Hong Kong Producer · Nichimen Company, Inc. v. M. v. Farland, Her Engines, Boilers, Etc., and A/s Vigra, Defendants-Appellants-Appellees v. Seaboard Shipping Co., Ltd. · Internatio-Rotterdam, Inc. v. Thomsen · Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. California Stevedore & Ballast Co.
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]ny bill of lading ... for the carriage of goods by sea between [domestic] ports, containing an express statement that it shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter, shall be subjected hereto as fully as if subject hereto by the express provisions of this chapter.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hen COGSA does not apply of its own force but is incorporated into a maritime contract by reference, it does not have 'statute rank'; rather, it is merely a part of the contract, a term like any other....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[h]ad shippers wanted to obtain greater coverage than that provided by the terms of the bill of lading, that bill permitted them to declare a greater value for their goods. They did not do so.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Caterpillar Overseas, S.A. v. Marine Transport Inc., Farrell Lines, Inc. Virginia International Terminals, Inc., Caterpillar Overseas, S.A. v. Farrell Lines, Inc. Virginia International Terminals, Inc. Marine Transport Inc., Caterpillar Overseas, S.A. v. Farrell Lines, Inc., Marine Transport Inc., and Virginia International Terminals, Inc. · Caterpillar Overseas Sa v. Marine Transport Inc Caterpillar Overseas Sa
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.