The Robert W. Parsons’s Empirical Analysis
191 U.S. 17 · 1903
Citation profile
149 federal appellate · 46 district · 61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 379 later decisions (62 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2018 · most notably Wilburn Boat Company v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company (1955), Continental Grain Company v. The Fbl-585 (1960)
149 federal appellate · 46 district · 61 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 Chicago Co v. City of Chicago · The Daniel Ball · The Lottawanna · The Plymouth · Missouri v. Lewis
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 379 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“purpose for which the craft is constructed and the business in which it is engaged.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'form in their ordinary condition by themselves, or by uniting with other waters, a continued highway over which commerce is or may be carried on with other States or foreign countries, in the customary modes in which such commerce is conducted by water'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In all these eases the distinction is sharply drawn between a common-law action in personam, with a concurrent attachment against the goods and chattels of the defendant, subject, of course, to any existing liens, and a proceeding in rem against, the vessel as the debtor or ‘offending tiling,’ which is the characteristic of a suit in admiralty. The same distinction is carefully preserved in the general admiralty rules prescribed by this court; rale 2 declaring that in suits in personam the mesne process may be ‘by a warrant of arrest of the person of the defendant, with a clause therein that if he cannot be found, to attach his goods and chattels to the amount sued for’; and rule 0. that in suits and proceedings in rein the process shall be by warrant of arrest of the ship, goods or other things to be arrested, with public notice to be given in the newspapers. The former is in strict analogy to a common-law proceeding and is a concurrent remedy. The latter is a proceeding distinctively maritime, of which exclusive jurisdiction is given to the admiralty courts.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. The Kongsli · The Robert W. Parsons
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.