Wisconsin Packing Co. v. Indiana Refrigerator Lines, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
618 F.2d 441 · 1980
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently October 2008 · most notably Trepel v. Roadway Express, Inc. (1999), Pathway Bellows, Inc. v. Blanchette (1980)
24 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 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 Georgia Florida Alabama Railway Company v. Blish Milling Company · Chesapeake Ry Co v. Martin · Phillips Company v. Grand Trunk Western Railway Company · Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission · St Louis Iron Mountain Southern Railway Company v. C a Starbird
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a carrier or freight forwarder may not provide by rule, contract, or otherwise, a period of less than 9 months for filing a claim against it under this section....”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(a) Compliance with regulations. A claim for loss or damage to baggage or for loss, damage, injury, or delay to cargo, shall not be voluntarily paid by a carrier unless filed, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, with the receiving or delivering carrier, or carrier issuing the bill of lading, receipt, ticket, or baggage check, or carrier on whose line the alleged loss, damage, injury, or delay occurred, within the specified time limits applicable thereto and as otherwise may be required by law, the terms of the bill of lading or other contract of carriage, and all tariff provisions applicable thereto. (b) Minimum filing requirements. A written or electronic communication (when agreed to by the carrier and shipper or receiver involved) from a claimant, filed with a proper carrier within the time limits specified in the bill of lading or contract of carriage or transportation and: (1) Containing facts sufficient to identify the baggage or shipment (or shipments) of property, (2) asserting liability for alleged loss, damage, injury, or delay, and (3) making claim for the payment of a specified or determinable amount of money, shall be considered as sufficient compliance with the provisions for filing claims embraced in the bill of lading or other contract of carriage; provided, however, that where claims are electronically handled, procedures are established to ensure reasonable carrier access to supporting documents. (c) Documents not constituting claims. Bad order rep”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Since there was more than actual notice in this case, to overrule Hopper would be inappropriate, particularly insofar as that case helps illuminate the role actual notice can play in an evaluation of the overall situation.” As discussed below, we need not address the validity of the Hopper Paper rule. 3 . Even if CF’s actions prevented Intech from discovering the damage, Intech’s claim is still barred by section 2(b) of the bill of lading. The relevant language states”
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.