Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 116 F.2d 440 - Lakos v. Saliaris

Lakos v. Saliaris’s Empirical Analysis

116 F.2d 440 · 1940

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
2
states following
December 2011
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably Conte v. Flota Mercante Del Estado (1960), Pasquel v. Owen (1950)

23 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

13019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Cohens v. Virginia · Edye v. Robertson · Cohens v. Virginia · Oscanyan v. Arms Co. · Whitney v. Robertson

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

  1. ““§ 596. Time for payment; double wages recoverable “The master or owner of any vessel making coasting voyages shall pay to every seaman his wages within two days after the termination of the agreement under which he was shipped, or at the time such seaman is discharged, whichever first happens ; and in case of vessels making foreign voyages, or from a port on the Atlantic to a port on the Pacific, or vice versa, within twenty-four hours after the cargo has been discharged, or within four days after the seaman has been discharged, whichever first happens; and in all cases the seaman shall be entitled to be paid at the time of his discharge on account of wages a sum equal to one-third part of the balance due him. Every master or owner who refuses or neglects to make payment in the manner hereinbefore mentioned without sufficient cause shall pay to the seaman a sum equal to two days’ pay for each and every day during which payment is delayed beyond the respective periods, which sum shall be recoverable as wages in any claim made before the court; but this section shall not apply to masters or owners of any vessel the seamen of which are entitled to share in the profits of the cruise or voyage. This section shall not apply to fishing or whaling vessels or yachts. B.S. § 4529; Dec. 21, 1898, c. 28, §§ 4, 26, 30 Stat. 756 , 764; Mar. 4, 1915, c. 153, § 3, 38 Stat. 1164 .” “§ 597. Payment at ports “Every seaman on a vessel of the United States shall be entitled to receive on demand ”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““After pointing out that the protection of American seamen demands that these provisions of the law be enforced with respect to foreign seamen as well, since otherwise foreign seamen would have 'an advantage in obtaining employment, the court in Strathearn S. S. Co. v. Dillon, supra, went on to say, 252 U.S. [348 at] page 355, 40 S.Ct. [350 at] page 352, 64 L.Ed. 607 , ‘But, taking the provisions of the act as the same are written, we think it plain that it manifests the purpose of Congress to place American and foreign seamen on an equality of right in so far as the privileges of this section are concerned, with equal opportunity to resort to the courts of the United States for the enforcement of the act’ Foreign seamen would manifestly not be placed on an equality of right with American seamen ‘with equal opportunity to resort to the courts of the United States for the enforcement of the act’, if the courts were at liberty in their discretion to decline jurisdiction of such suits instituted by foreign seamen. And to this we may add that, in the language of Chief Justice Marshall, ‘We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.’ Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 404 , 5 L.Ed. 257 .””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““It is well settled that the protection of this statute [ 46 U.S.C.A. § 597 ] extends to foreign seamen on a foreign vessel within a port of the United States and that it secures to them the payment of their wages upon the completion of - the voyage ending in such port. (Cases cited.)””
    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.