Cacey v. Virginian Ry. Co.’s Empirical Analysis
85 F.2d 976 · 1936
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently January 1991 · most notably Harry G. Seaboldt v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company (Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff) v. Thompson Mahogany Company (Third-Party Defendant) (1961), Chicago v. Dobry Flour Mills, Inc. (1954)
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 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 Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Chicago Milwaukee St Paul Railway Company · Santa Fe, Prescott & Phœnix Railway Co. v. Grant Bros. Construction Co. · Canal Company v. Hill · Buckeye Cotton Oil Co. v. Louisville & N. R. · Cleveland v. City of Bangor
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.
““In the overwhelming majority of the cases the result reached by their interpretational efforts can be condensed into the simple rule that where the parties fail to refer expressly to negligence in their contract such failure evidences the parties’ intention not to provide for indemnity for the indemnitee’s negligent acts. While this rule of construction is expressed by the courts in various forms, all of them in effect say: ‘A contract of indemnity will not be construed to indemnify a person against his own negligence where such intention is not expressed in clear and unequivocal terms.’ ””
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.