The J. E. Rumbell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

134 federal appellate · 122 district · 27 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 411 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the lien created by the statute of a State, for repairs or supplies furnished to a vessel in her home port, has the like precedence over a prior mortgage, that is accorded to a lien for repairs or supplies in a foreign port under the general maritime law, as recognized and adopted in the United States. Each rests upon the furnishing of supplies to the ship,' on the credit of the ship herself, to preserve her existence and secure her usefulness, for the benefit of all having any title or interest in her. Each creates a jus in re, a right of property in the vessel, existing independently of possession, and arising as soon as the contract is made, and before the institution of judicial proceedings to enforce it. The contract in each case is maritime, and the lien which the law gives to secure it is maritime in its nature, and is enforced in admiralty by reason of its maritime nature only. The mortgage, on the other hand, is not a maritime contract, and constitutes no maritime lien, and the mortgagee can only share in the proceeds in the registry after all maritime liens have been satisfied.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. The Glide · De Lano v. The Alvira

2. ““ In the admiralty and maritime law of the United States, as declared and established by the decisions of this court, the following propositions are no longer doubtful: 1st. For necessary repairs or supplies furnished to a vessel in a foreign port, a lien is given by the general maritime law, following the civil law, and may be enforced in admiralty. 2d. For repairs or supplies in the. home port of the vessel, no lien exists, or can be- enforced in admiralty, under the general law, independently of local statute. 3d. Whenever the statute of a State gives a lien, to be enforced by process in rem against the vessel, for repairs or supplies in her home port, this lien, being similar to the lien arising in a foreign port under the general law, is in the nature of a maritime lien, and therefore may be enforced in admiralty in the courts of the United States. 4th. This lien, in the nature of a maritime lien, and to be enforced by process in the nature of admiralty process, is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, sitting in admiralty. . The fundamental reasons on which these propositions rest may be summed up thus: The admiralty and maritime jurisdiction is Conferred on the courts of the United States by the Constitution, and cannot be enlarged or restricted by the legislation of a State. No state legislation, therefore, can bring within the admiralty jurisdiction .of the national courts a subject not maritime in its nature. But whert a right, mariti”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. The Glide · Bode v. The Templar

3. ““Whenever a debt shall be contracted by the master, owner, agent or consignee of any ship or vessel within this state for either of the following purposes: On account of any work done, or materials or articles furnished in this state for or towards the building, repairing, fitting, furnishing or equipping such ship or vessel * * * such debt shall be a lien upon such ship or vessel, her tackle, apparel and furniture, and continue to be a lien on the same until paid, and shall be preferred to all other Mens thereon except mariners’ wages.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. The Kate · The Rockaway