Florio v. Olson’s Empirical Analysis
129 F.3d 678 · 1997
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently July 2017
8 federal appellate · 6 district ·
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 Jerome Grubart Inc v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company City of Chicago · Victory Carriers, Inc. v. Law · Victory Carriers, Inc. v. Law · Evergreen Marine Corporation v. Six Consignments of Frozen Scallops · White v. Gittens
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] party seeking to invoke federal admiralty jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1) over a tort claim must satisfy conditions both of location and of connection with maritime activity. A court applying the location test must determine whether the tort occurred on navigable water or whether the injury suffered on land was caused by a vessel on navigable water. [ ] The connection test raises two issues. A court, first, must “assess the general features of the type of incident involved,” [] to determine whether the incident has “a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce[.]” Second, a court must determine whether “the general character” of the “activity giving rise to the incident” shows a “substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The ‘location’ requirement for maritime jurisdiction has not been met in this case because no vessel can be said to have caused Florio’s injuries. We therefore need not address whether the ‘connection’ requirement has been satisfied, nor do we reach the merits of this case.”). 10 . See Compl. ¶¶ 67-69 (alleging that Zeghibe”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“In order to satisfy the `location' or `situs' requirement, a party must show either that the injury occurred on navigable water or that the injury was caused by a vessel on navigable water.”
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.