Smith v. Burnett’s Empirical Analysis
173 U.S. 430 · 1899
Citation profile
119 federal appellate · 76 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 279 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2013 · most notably United States v. Carter (1910), The Iroquois (1904)
119 federal appellate · 76 district · 10 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 District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on The Baltimore · The Philadelphia Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad Company v. The Philadelphia and Havre De Grace Steam Towboat Company · Panama Co v. Napier Shipping Co · Carleton v. Franconia Iron & Steel Co.
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 279 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“bound to exercise reasonable diligence in ascertaining the condition of the berths and if there is any dangerous obstruction, to remove it, or to give due notice of its existence to vessels about to use the berths.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“to exercise reasonable diligence in ascertaining the condition of the berths thereat, and if there is any dangerous obstruction to remove it, or to give due notice of its existence to vessels about to use the berths.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Lord Chancellor remarked: ‘In this case the wharfinger, who happens to be the consignee, invites the vessel to a particular place to unload. If, as it is said, to his knowledge the place for unloading was improper and likely to injure the vessel, he certainly ought to have adopted one of these alternatives: either he ought not to have invited the vessel or he ought to have informed the vessel what the condition of things was when she was invited, so that the injury might have been avoided.’ Lord Watson: T do not doubt that there is a duty incumbent upon wharfingers in the position of the appellants towards vessels which they invite to use their berthage for the purpose of loading from or unloading upon their wharf; they are in a position to see, 1 and are in my opinion bound to use reasonable diligence in ascertaining whether the berths themselves and the approaches to them are in an ordinary condition of safety for vessels coming to and lying at the wharf. If'the approach to the'' .both is impeded by an unusual obstruction they must either remove it, or if that cannot be done, “they must give due notice of it to ships coming there to use their quay.’ And Lord Herschell: T do not for a moment deny that there is a duty on the part of the owner of the wharf to those whom he invites to come alongside that wharf, and a duty in which the condition of the bed of the river adjoining that wharf may be involved. But in the present case we are not dealing, as were the learned judg”
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.