The Roanoke’s Empirical Analysis
189 U.S. 185 · 1903
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 18 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2009 · most notably Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen (1917), Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad (1912)
35 federal appellate · 18 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.
Relationships
Relies on M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Gibbons v. Ogden · Plessy v. Ferguson · Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. · Aaron Cooley v. The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia to the Use of the Society for the Relief of Distressed Pilots Their Widows and Children Same
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The master is the agent of the vessel and •its owner in more than the ordinary sense. During the voyage he is in fact the alter ego of his principal. He is entrusted with an un controlled authority to provide for the crew, and for the preservation and repair of the ship. He engages the cargoes, receives the freight, hires and pays his crew, and is entrusted perhaps for years with the command and disposition of the vessel.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The injustice of permitting such claims to be set up is plainly apparent. * * * The statute of Washington, however, provides for an absolute lien upon the ship for work done or material furnished at the request of the contractor or subcontractor, and makes no provision for the protection of the owner in case the contractor has been paid in full the amount of his bill before notice of the claim of the subcontractor is received. The finding in this case is that the contractor, who had agreed, in consonance with the usual course of business, to make the repairs upon the vessel, had been paid in full by the claimant. The injustice of holding the ship under the circumstances is plainly manifest.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. The Energia““Bearing in mind that exclusive jurisdiction of all admiralty and maritime cases is vested by the Constitution in the federal courts, which are thereby made judges of the scope of such jurisdiction, subject, of course, to congressional legislation, the statute of the state of Washington, in so far as it attempts to control the administration of the maritime law by creating and superadding conditions for the benefit of a particular class of creditors, and thereby depriving the owners of vessels of defenses to which they would otherwise have been entitled, is an unlawful interference with that jurisdiction, and to that extent is unconstitutional and void.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. The Energia
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.