Insurance Company v. Transportation Company’s Empirical Analysis
79 U.S. 194 · 1870
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1989 · most notably Ashton v. Cameron County Water Improvement District No. One (1936), The G. R. Booth (1898)
16 federal appellate · 24 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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.
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"it is well settled that when an efficient cause nearest the loss is a peril expressly insured against, the insurer is not to be relieved from responsibility by his showing that the property was brought within that peril by a cause not mentioned in the contract." Howard Ins. Co. v. Norwich & N.Y. Trans. Co., 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 194, 199 , 20 L.Ed. 378 (1870).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘In case of the concurrence of two causes of loss, one at the risk of the assured and the other insured against, or one insured against by A., and the other by B., if the damage by the perils respectively can be discriminated each party must bear its proportion.’ * * * “Where different parties, whether the assured and the underwriter, or different underwriters, are responsible for different causes of loss, and the damage by each cannot be distinguished, the party responsible for the predominating efficient cause, or that by which the opération of the other is directly occasioned, as being merely incidental to it, is liable to bear the loss.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If, where the assured and the underwriters or different underwriters are each responsible for different causes of loss which concur in the loss, and the damage from each cause cannot be distinguished, the party responsible for the predominating, efficient cause, or that by which the operation of the other is directly occasioned as being merely incidental to it, is liable to boar the loss.””
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.