Burrill v. Crossman’s Empirical Analysis
69 F. 747 · 1895
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently August 1925
5 federal appellate · 8 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 Dayton v. . Parke · Sixteen Hundred Tons of Nitrate of Soda v. McLeod · Riley v. A Cargo of Iron Pipes · Owen v. 65,000 Bushels of Corn · Carsanego v. Wheeler
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Fourteenth. And, further answering, the respondent alleges that the charter party referred to in the, libel herein contained a clause providing that the vessel should have an "absolute lien upon the cargo for freight and demurrage, and that the charterers’ responsibility should cease upon the loading of the cargo and signing of the bills of lading; that said vessel was fully laden, as alleged in the fourth article of the libel herein; and. that thereafter, and long prior to the said 4th day of September, 1S93 (the date upon which it is alleged in the fifth article of said libel that notice in writing was given to the agents of the respondents at Rio Janeiro that said vessel was ready to discharge her cargo), bills of lading of similar tenor for the whole of said cargo were duly signed by the master of said vessel, a copy of one of which is annexed hereto and made part hereof, and said bills of lading were duly assigned and delivered to the Companhia Industrial do Brazil, and by them assigned and delivered to Messrs. Manoel da Cruz & Filho, who thereby became the consignees of said cargo; and that thereupon all liability of these respondents to the owners of said vessel under said charter party ceased, and it became the duty of the master and owner of said vessel, upon the failure, alleged in the fifth article of said libel, of the consignees of said cargo to discharge the same at the agreed rate per day, to notify said consignee of the amount of the demurrage claimed by reas”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Burrill v. Crossman
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.