Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 119 U.S. 388 - Johnson v. Chicago & Pacific Elevator Co.

Johnson v. Chicago & Pacific Elevator Co.’s Empirical Analysis

119 U.S. 388 · 1886

Citation profile

216
cited by 216 later decisions
52
cited 52 times by the Supreme Court
15
states following
May 2014
most recently cited

30 federal appellate · 27 district · 54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 216 later decisions (52 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2014 · most notably Simpson v. Shepard (1913), Continental Grain Company v. The Fbl-585 (1960)

30 federal appellate · 27 district · 54 state decisions — followed in 15 states

36018861890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Munn v. Illinois · The Lottawanna · The Plymouth · James L. v. Carryl · The Moses Taylor

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

  1. ““Under the decisions of this court in The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 20 [ 18 L. Ed. 125 ], and in Ex parte Phenix Ins. Co., 118 U. S. 610 [ 7 Sup. Ct. 25 , 30 L. Ed. 274 ], at the present term, it must be held that the cause of action in this-case was not a maritime tort of which a District Court of the United States,, as a court of admiralty, would have jurisdiction, and that the remedy belonged wholly to a court of common law; the substance and consummation, of the wrong having taken place on land, and not on navigable water, and the cause of action not having been complete on such water. This being so,. no reason exists why the remedy for the wrong should not he pursued In the slate court, according to the statutory method prescribed by the law of the state, even though that law gives a lien on the vessel.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Third Compiled Laws of Michigan, p. 3254: “ (10789) Sec. 2. Every water craft of above five tons bur-then, used or intended to be used, in navigating the waters of this State, shall be subject to a hen thereon: “First, for all debts contracted by the.owner or part owner, master, clerk, agent or steward of such craft, on account of supplies and provisions furnished for the use of said water craft,' on account of work done or services rendered, on board of such craft, by seamen, or any employé, other than the master thereof; on account of work done or service rendered by any person in or about the loading or unloading of said water craft; on account of work done or materials furnished by mechanics, tradesmen, or others, in or about the building, repairing, fitting, furnishing or equipping such craft: Provided, That when labor shall be performed or materials furnished, as aforesaid, by a subcontractor or workman other than an original contractor, and the same is not paid for, said person or persons may give the owner or his agent, or the master or clerk of said craft, timely notice of his or their said claim, and from thenceforth said person or persons shall have a lien upon said craft .pro rata for his' or their said claims, to the amount that may be due by said owner of said original contractor for work or labor then done onfcjsaid water craft.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “There being ho lien on the tug, by the maritime law, for the injury on land inflicted in this case, the State could create such a lien therefor as it deemed expedient, and could enact reasonable rules for its enforcement, not amounting to a regulation of commerce. Liens under state statutes, enforceable by attachment, in suits in personam, are of every-day occurrence, and may even extend to liens on vessels, when the proceedings to enforce them do not amount to admiralty proceedings in rem, or otherwise conflict with the Constitution of the United States. There is no more valid objection to the attachment proceeding to enforce the lien in a suit in personam, by holding the vessel by mesne process to be subjected to execution on the personal judgment when recovered, than there is in subjecting her to seizure on the execution. Both are incidents of a common law remedy, which a court of common law is competent to give.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. The Glide

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.