Rea v. The Eclipse’s Empirical Analysis
135 U.S. 599 · 1890
Citation profile
128 federal appellate · 56 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 349 later decisions (24 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2016 · most notably Swift & Co. Packers v. Compania Colombiana Del Caribe, S. A. (1950), Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint (1927)
128 federal appellate · 56 district · 5 state decisions
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 People's Ferry Co. v. Beers · Bogart v. The Steamboat John Jay · Eber Ward Survivor Owner of the Steamboat Detroit v. Charles Thompson · Charles Minturn v. Lafayette Maynard Gilbert
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 349 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“contracts, claims, and services purely maritime,”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““So far as the creditors or intervenors were concerned, if the former desired to wind up the trust, or the latter to enforce an alleged contract-of sale, which is, indeed, what ■is asked by this intervention, they should have resorted to a different tribunal. While the court of admiralty exercises its jurisdiction upon equitable principles, it has not the characteristic powers of a court of equity. It cannot entertain a bill or libel for specific performance, or to correct a mistake, (Andrews v. [Essex Fire & Marine] Ins. Co., 3 Mason 6, 16 [1 Fed.Cas. page 885, No. 374],) or declare or enforce a trust or an equitable title, ■ (Ward v. Thompson, 22 How. 330 [ 16 L.Ed. 249 ]; The Amelia, 6 Ben. 475 [12 Fed.Cas. page 150, No. 6,487]; Kelum v. Emerson, 2 Curt. 79 [ 14 Fed. Cas. page 263 , No. 7,669],) or exercise jurisdiction in -matters of account merely, (Grant v. Poillon, 20 How. 162 [ 15 L.Ed. 871 ]; Minturn v. Maynard, 17 How. 477 [ 15 L.Ed. 235 ]; The Ocean Belle, 6 Ben. 253 [18 Fed.Cas. page 524, No. 10,402],) or decree the sale of a ship.for an unpaid mortgage, or declare her to be the property of the mortgagees, and'direct possession of her to be given to them, (Bogart v. The John Jay, 17 How. 399 [ 15 L.Ed. 95 ].) The jurisdiction embraces all maritime contracts, torts, -injuries, or offenses; and it depends, in cases of contract, upon the.nature of the contract, and is limited to-contracts, claims, and services purely maritime, and touching rights and duties appertain”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stathos v. Maro“all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction”
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.