Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 114 U.S. 355 - The Belgenland

The Belgenland’s Empirical Analysis

114 U.S. 355 · 1885

Citation profile

624
cited by 624 later decisions
46
cited 46 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
August 2022
most recently cited

192 federal appellate · 146 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 624 later decisions (46 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2022 · most notably M/s Bremen v. Zapata off-Shore Company (1972), Lauritzen v. Larsen (1953)

192 federal appellate · 146 district · 3 state decisions

800188518901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 " Scotland" · James L. v. Carryl · The Maggie Hammond · William Mason v. Blaireau

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

  1. “unless special circumstances exist to show that justice would be better subserved by declining it.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Circumstances often exist, which render it inexpedient for the court to take jurisdiction of controversies between foreigners in cases not arising in the country of the forum, as, where they are governed by the laws of the country to which the parties belong, and there is no difficulty in a resort to its courts, or where they have agreed to resort to no other tribunals. The eases of foreign seamen suing for wages, or because of ill treatment, are often in this category, and the consent of their consul, or minister, is frequently required before the court will proceed to entertain jurisdiction, not on the ground that it has not jurisdiction, but that, from motives of convenience or international comity, it will use its discretion whether to exercise jurisdiction or not; and where the voyage is ended, or the seamen have been dismissed or treated with great cruelty, it will entertain jurisdiction even against the protest of the consul.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A]lthough the courts will use a discretion about assuming jurisdiction of controversies between foreigners in cases arising beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the country to which the courts belong, yet where such controversies are communis juris,-that is, where they arise under the common law of nations,-special grounds should appear to induce the court to deny its aid to a foreign suitor when it has jurisdiction of the ship or party charged. The existence of jurisdiction in all such cases is beyond dispute; the only question will be whether it is expedient to exercise it. 4 ****** 5 * * * 6 "The subject has frequently been before our own admiralty courts of original jurisdiction, and there has been but one opinion expressed, namely: that they have jurisdiction in such cases, and that they will exercise it unless special circumstances exist to show that justice would be better subserved by declining it.”
    5 later decisions 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.