The Delaware’s Empirical Analysis
161 U.S. 459 · 1896
Citation profile
170 federal appellate · 86 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 356 later decisions (23 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1974 · most notably Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad (1912), Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Stranahan (1909)
170 federal appellate · 86 district · 9 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Belden v. Chase · American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington · The Britannia the Beaconsfield the Britannia v. Cleugh Same · Hutchinson v. The Northfield
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 356 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘•It is entirely clear that the whole object of the act is to modify the relations previously existing between a vessel and her cargo.””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘The cases of The Britannia, 153 U.S. 130 , 14 S.Ct. 795 , 38 L.Ed. 660 , and The Northfield, 154 U.S. 629 , 14 S.Ct. 1184 , 24 L.Ed. 680 , must be xegarded, however, as settling the law that the preferred steamer will xiot be held in fault for maintaining her course and speed, so long as it is possible for the other to avoid her by porting, at least, in the absence of some distinct indication that she is about to fail in her duty. If the master of the .preferred steamer were at liberty to speculate upon the possibility, or even of the probability, of the approaching steamer failing to do her duty and keep out of his way, the certainty that the former will hold his course, upon which the latter has a right to rely, and which it is the very object of the rule to insure, would give place to doubts on the part of the master of the obligated steamer as to whether he would do so or not, and produce a timidity and feebleness of action on the part of both, which would bring about more collisions than it would prevent. Belden v. Chase, 150 U.S. 674 , 14 S.Ct. 264 , 37 L.Ed. 1218 ; The Highgate, 62 L.T.R. 841; S.C. 6 Asp.Mar.Law Cases, 512.’ ””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. The George L. Garlick · The Cygnus““If tlie owner of any vessel transporting merchandise to or from any port In the United States of America shall exercise due diligence to malte the said vessel in all respects seaworthy and properly manned, equipped and supplied, neither the vessel, her owners, agents 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.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.