Lonray, Inc. v. Azucar, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
775 F.2d 1521 · 1985
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 2023
1 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Relies on Commercial Molasses Corp. v. New York Tank Barge Corp. · I.C.C. Metals, Inc. v. Municipal Warehouse Co. · Procter & Gamble Distributing Co. v. Lawrence American Field Warehousing Corp. · Stegemann v. Miami Beach Boat Slips, Inc. · United States v. Seamster
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There is optional language in subsection 7-403(l)(b) which places the burden of establishing the bailee’s negligence on the bailor or his transferee. This was the rule followed by the majority of courts under the prior law. Today, many courts continue to follow this approach. In those jurisdictions, once the bailor has established his prima facie case, a presumption of negligence in favor of the bailor arises which shifts to the bailee the burden of going forward with the evidence. The ultimate burden of persuasion, however, rests on the bailor. [Footnotes omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“... It is not enough to show that the bailee used reasonable care if ‘mysterious disappearance’ is the only explanation given ... If the bailee fails to provide a sufficient explanation supported by evidence, then he will be liable for breach of bailment and negligence. Only after the bailee has offered proof of the circumstances of the loss, or has come forward with some evidence of intervening cause, such as theft, which is sufficient to legally excuse non-delivery, must the plaintiff go forward with affirmative evidence of the defendant-bailee’s negligence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Our reading of Commercial Molasses [Corp. v. New York Tank Barge Corp., 314 U.S. 104 , 62 S.Ct. 156 , 86 L.Ed. 89 (1941) ] convinces us that the bailee meets his burden of going forward with the evidence in a case in which the immediate cause of the loss is neither obvious nor known to the bailor only when he first introduces evidence of the manner in which the loss occurred and then introduces evidence that he exercised due care to prevent loss due to such a cause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.