Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 108 F.1d 292 - Whitney v. Olsen

Whitney v. Olsen’s Empirical Analysis

108 F. 292 · 1901

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
April 1967
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 5 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1967 · most notably Calmar Ss Corporation v. Taylor (1938), The Iroquois (1904)

15 federal appellate · 5 district ·

1801901191019201930194019501960decided

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 Carib Prince · Compania De Navigacion La Flecha v. Brauer · Stuart v. Hayden · The City of Alexandria · City of Cleveland v. Chisholm

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

  1. ““The burden of proof is upon the libelant to support his allegation that the master failed to do his duty towards him in this respect. If it liad been shown that the vessel could, under the circumstances, make about ten miles an hour, and thereby have made Valparaiso in a little more than five or six days, it might have been proper for the master to have gone in there; indeed, I think it would have been his duty to do so. But, as it is, I do not think it would be safe to assume that this port could have been made in less than two weeks, and I do not think that the vessel was under obligation to make that sacrifice of time and risk of cargo for the libelant.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““There might have been additional expense incurred, but this presents no excuse, — ‘not the least extenuation.’ If the master had performed this duty, and taken the injured seaman to Port Townsend for treatment, the vessel and its owners would simply ‘have been subjected to a burden which the law imposes.’ No member of the crew could complain or hold the ship responsible in damages for loss of time necessarily incurred in the discharge of its duty. Necessity and humanity, as well as the principles of the admiralty law, would have amply protected the owners of the ship from such loss.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “, “There is a marine hospital at Port Townsend, and that is where the libelant could have received proper medical treatment, and where the master should have taken him. The ship’s obligation to the libelant did not depend on the precise geographical location of the nearest port.””
    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.