Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 12 F.1d 207 - The Vidal Sala

The Vidal Sala’s Empirical Analysis

12 F. 207 · 1882

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
January 1966
most recently cited

2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1966

2 district ·

20188218901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 Insurance Company v. Dunham · Ex parte Easton · Thomas v. Osborn · Roberts v. Bark Windermere

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

  1. ““The doubt I have had in the case is upon the objection raised to the jurisdiction of the court, a point not taken in the court below. It is claimed by the counsel for the respondents that the agreement for the service rendered is to be regarded simply as a hiring of the yard and apparatus; and, certainly, if this be the true character of the transaction, there would be great difficulty in upholding the jurisdiction. On the other side, it is contended that the service rendered was a service in the repairs of the vessel, and was as much a part of them as the work of the shipmaster, or the materials furnished by him. There can be no doubt that in cases where the shipmaster, owning the shipyard and apparatus, is employed to make the repairs, the service in question enters into and becomes part of the contract, and is thus the appropriate subject of admiralty jurisdiction. And the question is whether any well-founded distinction exists between a transaction of that character and the present one. The owner of the yard and apparatus, together with his hands, superintends and conducts the operation of raising and lowering the vessel, and also of fixing her upon the ways, preparatory to the repairs. The service requires skill and experience in the business, and is essential in the process of repair. I do not go into the question whether this is a contract made, or a service rendered, on the land or on the water. It undoubtedly partakes of both characters. But I am free to confess I h”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Tbe employment cast upon tbe libelants by tbe contract required, inter alia, care and mechanical and nautical skill in its performance, and tbe work done must be regarded as a betterment of tbe steamer herself and as appertaining to marine commerce and navigation, and absolutely essential to render her seaworthy and enable her to prosecute her voyage. I think the whole contract is purely maritime. * * * So far as my researches and information extend, tMs is the first time that this precise question has come before this court for decision; therefore it is to me primas impression is. The maxim of the law is to amplify its remedies, and, without usurping jurisdiction, to apply its rules to the advancement of substantial justice; and without doubt or hesitancy, I pronounce for the jurisdiction and overrule the exceptions.” >”
    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.