Crown Central Petroleum Corporation v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Defendant’s Empirical Analysis
768 F.2d 632 · 1985
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably Gibraltar Savings v. LDBrinkman Corp. (1988), Koonce v. Quaker Safety Products & Manufacturing Co. (1986)
27 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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 Watkins v. Junker · Funkhouser v. J. B. Preston Co. · La Sara Grain Co. v. First National Bank of Mercedes · Black Lake Pipe Line Co. v. Union Construction Co. · Texas Co. v. State & Duval County Ranch 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When no specified rate of interest is agreed upon by the parties, interest at the rate of six percent per annum shall be allowed on all accounts and contracts ascertaining the sum payable, commencing on the thirtieth (30th) day from and after the time when the sum is due and payable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“h[e]ld that, as a matter of law, a prevailing plaintiff may recover prejudgment interest compounded daily (based on a 365-day year) on damages that have accrued by the time of judgment____ Prejudgment interest shall accrue at the prevailing rate that exists on the date judgment is rendered according to the provisions of Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5069-1.05 § 2 [ 1 ]____”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wood v. Armco, Inc.“the Supreme Court has created a new rule that supplants the original equitable prejudgment interest rule and favors the policies of restoring symmetry to the law and compensating all plaintiffs.”
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.