The "Civilta"’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 federal appellate · 33 district · 3 state decisions

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.

1. ““Both vessels are responsible for the navigation, as has aireadybeen stated; the ship Civilta because her pilot was in general charge, and the Lug because of the duty which rested on her to act on her own responsibility in the situation in which she was placed. The tug was in fault because'she did not other own motion change her course; * * * and the ship because her pilot, who had charge of both ship and tug, neglected to give necessary directions to the tug when he saw, or should have seen, that no precautions were taken to avoid the approaching danger. ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. The Shubert v. The Einar · The De Gama

2. ““Being on the ship, which was two hundred and seventy feet astern of the tug, it is not to be presumed that he was to do more than direct the general course to be taken by the ship in getting to her place of destination. The details of the immediate navigation of the tug, with reference to approaching vessels, must necessarily have been left to a great extent to those on hoard of her. She was where she would ordinarily see an object ahead before those on the ship could; and, having all the motive power of the combined vessels under her own control, she was in a situation to act promptly, and do what was required, under the circumstances. That this was expected is clearly shown by the fact that down to the time of the collision the pilot on the ship had found no occasion to direct her movements. Her own pilot or master seems to have managed the navigation satisfactorily. We do not entertain a doubt that, situated as the tug was, in the night, so far away from the ship, it was her duty to do what was required by the law of a vessel under steam, to keep herself and the ship out of the way of an approaching vessel; particularly if the pilot of the ship did not assume; actual control for the time being of the navigation of the two vessels.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. The Peru

3. ““Doth vessels were under the general orders of the pilot on the ship, but it is also expressly found as a fact that the tug actually received no orders from him. ' The ship and the tug were in law one vessel, and that a vessel under steam. * * * ’ Doth vessels were responsible for the navigation, as lias already been seen, — the ship because her pilot was in general charge, and the tug because of the duty which rested on her to act on her own responsibility in the situation in which she was placed. The tug was in fault because she did not on her own motion change her courso so as to keep both herself and the ship out of the way, and the ship because her pilot, who was in charge of both ship and tug, neglected to give the necessary directions to the tug when lie saw, or ought to have seen, that no precautions were taken by the tug to avoid the approaching danger. Had either the ship or the tug done its duty under the circumstances, there could have been no collision.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. The Shubert v. The Brown