Claflin v. . Meyer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 144 state decisions

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 161 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Applying these principles to the present case, we must hold that, when it appeared, as it did, that the goods were taken from the defendant’s warehouse by a burglarious entry thereof, the plaintiffs should have shown that some negligence or want of care, such as a prudent man would take under similar circumstances of his own property, caused or permitted or contributed to cause or permit that burglary.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kohlsaat v. Parkersburg & Marietta Sand Co. · Levine v. Delaware, L. & W. Railroad

2. ““But where the refusal to deliver is explained by the fact appearing that the goods have been lost, either destroyed by fire or stolen by. thieves, and the bailee is therefore unable to deliver them, there is no' prima facie evidence of his want of care, and the court will not assume in the absence of proof on the point that such fire or theft was the result of his negligence.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. McIntosh v. Schops

3. ““Upon its appearing that the goods were lost by a burglary committed upon the defendants’ warehouse, it was for the plaintiffs to establish affirmatively that such burglary was occasioned or was not prevented by reason of some negligence or omission of due care on the part of the warehouseman.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Levine v. Delaware, L. & W. Railroad