Pate v. Standard Dredging Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
193 F.2d 498 · 1952
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2016 · most notably Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co. (1959), Bartholomew v. Universe Tankships, Inc. (1959)
24 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 45 U.S.C. § 51 (Federal Employers' Liability Act) · 45 U.S.C. § 56 (Federal Employers' Liability Act)
Relies on American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn · The Osceola · Baltimore Co v. Phillips · Pacific Co v. Peterson · Smith v. Lykes Brothers-Ripley S. S. 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * a suit under the Jones Act for negligence and under the maritime law for unseaworthiness, where there is but a single wrongful invasion of a single primary right, are not separate and independent claims or causes of action within the meaning of Title 28, United States Code, Section 1441 (c).” ( 193 F.2d at 501 )”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]henever a separate and independent claim or cause of action, which would be removable if sued upon alone, is joined with one or more otherwise non-removable claims or causes of action.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in eases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply; * * ”.”
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.