The Vigilant’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 8 district ·

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

1. ““There remains the third principal point which we have stated — that, in the absence of proof that credit was given the vessel, no admiralty lien can arise, although the circumstances fulfill all the conditions which the local statute requires. This is supported by two supposed authorities. In The Samuel Marshall, 54 Fed. 396 , 402, 4 C. C. A. 385 , there is a dictum, in effect, that a local lien can be enforced in admiralty only where credit is given the vessel, and that in this respect there is the same limitation as with reference to supplies furnished a ship in a foreign port. The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 559 , 22 L. Ed. 654 , is supposed to lay down a similar rule at page 581; but this question did not arise in that case, and at page 580 the opinion says: ‘The rights of materialmen furnishing necessaries to a vessel in her home port may be regulated in each state by state legislation.’ Also, in The Glide, 167 U. S. 020 , 17 Sup. Ct. 930 , 42 L. Ed. 296 , the opinion quotes from the Lottawanna the unqualified language which we have already cited. In truth, this third point is but a repetition, in a new form, of the last question which we have answered, and seems to be disposed of by what we have said about The Glide and The í. E. Rumbell; and we have shown, by a full citation of authorities in the early part of this opinion, that the Supreme Court has reiterated the unrestricted power of state Legislatures to create liens on domestic vessels under such limitations as each may”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. The Rockaway

2. ““The very object of the state law is to give a lien not given by the maritime law, to wit, for supplies to a vessel at its home port, where, it may be, its owner resides, and where the conditions and necessities, in recognition of which the maritime law creates a lien upon a foreign vessel, do not exist. As we have before said, the state law, which says, in effect, that the supplies ordered by a master, owner or consignee, are presumed to be on the credit of the vessel (unless the contrary is shown), enters into the contract, which must be'taken to have been made with reference to the law. The burden, therefore, of showing an express repudiation of. such a pledge, known to the one who claims the lien, rests upon him who undertakes to rebut its implication.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. The Alaskan

3. ““Skips and vessels of all kinds built, repaired, fitted, fumisbed and supplied -with necessaries for navigation witbin tbis commonwealth shall be subject to a lien for all debts contracted by the builders, masters, owners, agents or consignees therebf, for work done or materials and supplies found or provided in the building, repairing, fitting, furnishing, supplying or equipping of the same in preference to any other debt due from the builders, masters, owners, agents, or consignees thereof.”' '”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. The Alaskan