The Kate’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

54 federal appellate · 61 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 161 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “knew, or by reasonable diligence could have ascertained,”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. The Underwriter · The South Coast

2. ““If coal had been furnished upon the order of the charterer as well as upon the credit of the vessel, under circumstances which did not charge libelant with knowledge of the terms of the charter party, hilt charged it only with knowledge of the fact that the vessel was being operated under a charter party, a different question would he presented.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McCaldin v. M. Seller & Co. · W. G. Coyle & Co. v. North America Steamship Corp.

3. ““On tho order of a steamship company, which had an agent and office in ■Now York City, tho libelant, which had a place of business in the same city, furnished and delivered coal to vessels at that place, which were operated by the steamship company, under charters requiring the charterer to pay for coal furnished to the vessels. “The owners of each chartered vessel, as the libelant knew, had an agent for the business of the vessel at Now York City. The libelant knew or could easily have known, what vessels belonged to the steamship company and what vessels were operated by the latter under time charters. It is true that its agents did not examine the charter parties, nor make any inquiry as to their provisions; but from what they had always heard about such instruments they believed and assumed, or took it for granted, that they contained conditions requiring tho charterers, at their own expense, to provide and pay for all coals needed by the vessel. It was under these circumstances that tlie libelant furnished each vessel, operated by the steamship company, with coal as ordered by that company, charging tlie company and the vessel therefor, without making any distinction in the mode of keeping its accounts between the vessels owned by the steamship company and those operated by it under time charter parties. Specifications of lien were filed in the proper office against each vessel to which coal was delivered. “None of the coal furnished to the chartered vessels was ordered ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. W. G. Coyle & Co. v. North America Steamship Corp.