Davis v. Odeco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
18 F.3d 1237 · 1994
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 4 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Giles v. General Electric Co. (2001), Frederick v. Kirby Tankships, Inc. (2000)
27 federal appellate · 4 district · 17 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.
Relationships
Relies on The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman · Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad · Vaughan v. Atkinson · Calmar Ss Corporation v. Taylor · Ferguson v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway 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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The collateral source rule is a substantive rule of law that bars a tortfeasor from reducing the quantum of damages owed to a plaintiff by the amount of recovery the plaintiff receives from other sources of compensation that are independent of (or collateral to) the tortfeasor.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) whether the employee makes any contribution to funding of the disability payment; (2) whether the benefit plan arises as the result of a collective bargaining activity; (3) whether the plan and payments thereunder cover both work-related and nonwork-related injuries; (4) whether payments from the plan are contingent upon length of service of the employee; and (5) whether the plan contains any specific language contemplating a set-off of benefits received under the plan against a judgment recovered in a tort action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is entitled to recovery under the Jones Act if he adduced probative evidence that [the defendant's] negligence played any part however smallin the development of his condition.”
2 later decisions 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.