Hare & Chase, Inc. v. Nat'l Sur. Co., 287 U.S. 662 (1932). · Go Syfert
Search
Hare & Chase, Inc. v. Nat'l Sur. Co., 287 U.S. 662 (1932). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“ndeed in most cases reasonable prudence is in fact common prudence; but strictly it is never its measure; a whole calling may have unduly lagged in the adoption of new and available devices”
135 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 50 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. (conn, 1997-05-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1937 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1937 1981 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co.
Conn. · 1997 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
ndeed in most cases reasonable prudence is in fact common prudence; but strictly it is never its measure; a whole calling may have unduly lagged in the adoption of new and available devices
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. United States
Ct. Cl. · 1987 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
there are precautions so imperative that even their universal disregard will not excuse their omission
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hare & Chase, Inc.
v.
National Surety Co.
No. 491.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 5, 1932.
287 U.S. 662
Messrs. Hartwell Cabell and Joseph S. Clark, Sr., for petitioner. Mr. Henry DeForest Baldwin for respondent.
Published
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 75%
Citer courts: Court of Claims (1) · Supreme Court of Connecticut (1)

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Messrs. Hartwell Cabell and Joseph S. Clark, Sr., for petitioner. Mr. Henry DeForest Baldwin for respondent.