Tokio Marine and Fire Insurance Company Limited v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation McDonnell Douglas Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
617 F.2d 936 · 1980
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently April 2008 · most notably McLinn F/v Fjord Johnson F/v Supersonic Churchill v. F/v Fjord F/v Supersonic F/v Supersonic (1984), Chemtrol Adhesives, Inc. v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance (1989)
27 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 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 Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n · 20 Cal. 3d 578 - American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court · Dann v. Johnston · Earley v. DiCenso · Houchins v. KQED, Inc.
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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he Convention draftsmen ... did not intend that cause of action to be exclusive.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he purpose of Warsaw was “to effect a uniformity of procedure and remedies.” To accomplish this goal, the drafters could have created a single cause of action to be asserted wherever suit was brought for wrongful death in international air travel. Alternatively, the drafters could have created a set of conditions and limitations uniformly applicable to all the various causes of action created by local law of the countries around the world. The drafters’ choice of the latter alternative is evidenced by Article 24, which provides that any action “however founded” may only be brought “subject to” the “conditions and limits set out in [the] convention.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Tokio Marine’s contentions that it might recover for McDonnell’s negligent failure to warn or its negligent misrepresentations also were properly rejected by the district judge. The disclaimer clause was broadly inclusive, and there is no merit to Tokio Marine’s argument that the parties intended to compartmentalize McDonnell’s negligence under pre-delivery and post-delivery labels. JAL agreed to waive “all liabilities ... arising by law or otherwise ... whether or not caused by seller’s negligence.” This waiver is broad enough to include a claim for post-delivery failure to warn.”
1 later decision 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.