Heredia v. Davies’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. ““Respondent’s first contention is that, as libelant was a citizen of Peru and was injured while in the performance of his duties on a Peruvian ship, the courts of the United States are without jurisdiction to entertain the libel. With this contention we cannot agree. In the absence of treaty stipulation, the courts of admiralty of the United States have jurisdiction of all matters appertaining to a foreign ship while in the ports of this country. The Belgenland, 114 U.S. 355 , 5 S.Ct. 860 , 29 L.Ed. 152 ; The Roxen, 4 Cir., 11 F.2d 55 , decided January 14, 1926; Elder Dempster Shipping Co. v. Pouppirt, 4 Cir., 125 F. 732 ; Cunard S. S. Co. v. Smith, 2 Cir., 255 F. 846 ; The Ester, D.C., 190 F. 216 . “While an admiralty court of the United States is under no obligation to entertain jurisdiction of a libel to recover for personal injuries, where libelant is a foreigner and the ship is a foreign ship, it is inclined to do so when (as in this case) it is necessary to prevent a failure of justice, or when the rights of the parties would be thereby best promoted. Cunard Steamship Co. v. Smith, supra. And when in such case the District Court exercises its discretion in favor of assuming jurisdiction, this discretion will not be reviewed on appeal, in the absence of showing that it was exercised on wrong principles, or that the District Judge has acted ‘so absolutely differently from the view which the court of appeal holds that they are justified in saying he has exercised it wrongl”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. The Fletero v. Arias

2. ““ * * * while an admiralty court of the United States is under no obligation to entertain jurisdiction where all the parties are foreigners, yet it also may entertain jurisdiction of a suit between aliens in civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction and is inclined to do so when it is necessary to prevent a failure of justice and if the rights of the parties would thereby be best promoted.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 168 F. Supp. 304 - Cuozzo v. ITALIAN LINE," ITALIA"-SOCIETA PER AZIONI, ETC.

3. “to prevent a failure of justice [and because] the rights of the parties [will] be thereby best promoted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gkiafis v. Steamship Yiosonas