Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 124 F.1d 1 - The Germanic

The Germanic’s Empirical Analysis

124 F. 1 · 1903

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
October 1967
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 1 district · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1967 · most notably State v. Lucas (1959), The Germanic (1905)

8 federal appellate · 1 district · 15 state decisions

1101903191019201930194019501960decided

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 Silvia · Insurance Company v. Boon · International Navigation Company v. Farr Bailey Manufacturing Company · The Carib Prince · Flint v. Christall

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

  1. ““I think that the first (clauses 1 and 2 of the act) presents exemptions in the case of direct want of care in respect of the cargo, and in the second (i. e., clause 3 of the act) the exemption is, though in a certain sense there may be want of care in respect of the cargo, primarily from liability for a fault arising in the navigation or the management of the vessel, and not of the cargo.” Sir F.- H. Jeune, in The Glenoehil, 8 Aspinall’s Maritime Gases, 219. “But I think if those sections (i. e., of the act) are contrasted, there is a strong and marked contrast in the provisions which deal with the care of the cargo and those which deal with the management of the ship herself, and I think that where the act done in the management of the ship is one which is necessarily done in the proper handling of the vessel — though in the particular case the handling is not properly done, but is done for the safety of the ship herself and is not primarily done at all in connection with the cargo — that must be a matter which falls within the words, ‘management of the said vessel.’ ” Barnes, J., in The Glenoehil,- Id. “The. fact that an act primarily having to do with cargo must incidentally affect the ship does not bring it within the class of acts done in the management of the ship. If the particular manner of performance adopted is not adopted with a view to its effect on the ship, but does affect the ship in a way that causes damage to cargo, the ship is not exempted from liability. *”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““shall exercise due diligence to make the said vessel in all respects seaworthy and properly manned, equipped, and supplied, neither the vessel, her owner or owners, agent, or charterers shall become or be held responsible for damage or loss resulting from faults or errors in navigation or in the management of said vessel.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Plainly, the main purposes of the act were to relieve the shipowner from liability for latent defects, not discoverable by the utmost care and diligence.””
    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.