Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 100 F.1d 104 - The Iris

The Iris’s Empirical Analysis

100 F. 104 · 1900

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
May 2025
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 17 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably The South Coast (1920), The Roanoke (1903)

17 federal appellate · 17 district ·

2301900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 The Lottawanna · Insurance Company v. Dunham · The J. E. Rumbell · Green v. Van Buskirk · The Glide

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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"By ilie maritime law, no lien for supplies or labor furnished a vessel is presumed to arise on a contract made by the owner, and proof is required that the minds of the parties to the contract met on a common understanding that such a. lien should be created. Neither is it sufficient that the party who furnished the labor or supplies gave credit, so far as his own intentions were concerned, to the vessel, or would not hare furnished them except on the belief lliat. lie was acquiring a lien for them.” 40 C. C. A. 301 , 303, 100 Fed. 104 , 106.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““There remains the third principal point which we have stated—that, in the absence of proof that credit was given the vessel, no admiralty lien can arise, although the circumstances fulfill all the conditions which the local statute requires. This is supported by two supposed authorities. In The Samuel Marshall, 4 C. C. A. 385 , 54 Fed. 396 , there is a dictum, in effect, that a local lien can be enforced in admiralty only where credit is given the vessel, and that in this respect there is the same limitation as with reference to supplies furnished a ship in a foreign port The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 559, 22 L. Ed. 654 , is supposed to lay down a similar.rule at page 5S1; but this question did not arise in that case, and at page 580 the opinion says: ‘The rights of material-men furnishing necessaries to a vessel in her home port may be regulated in each state by state legislation.’ Also, in The Glide, at page 620, 167 U. S., 17 Sup. Ct. 930, 42 L. Ed. 296 , ubi supra, the opinion quotes from The Lottawanna the unqualified language which we have already cited. In truth, this third point is but a repetition, in a new form, of the last question which we have answered and seems to be disposed of by what we have said about The Glide and The J. E. Rumbell'; and) we have shown, by a full citation of authorities in the early part of this opinion, that the Supreme Court has reiterated the unrestricted power of state Legislatures to create liens on domestic vessels under such limi”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““We are therefore to look at the terms of the statute, which contain no requirements beyond that the supplies and labor be furnished to a domestic vessel on the order of the owner, or of somebody representing him or employed by him.””
    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.