Doucette v. Vincent’s Empirical Analysis
194 F.2d 834 · 1952
Citation profile
93 federal appellate · 18 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 163 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2015 · most notably Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn (1953), Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co. (1959)
93 federal appellate · 18 district · 7 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. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1333 · 28 U.S.C. § 1873 · 28 U.S.C. § 41
Relies on Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian · Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki · Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley · Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen
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 163 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The section does, however, save ‘to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.’ This ‘savings to suitors’ clause was intended to carry into Title 28 in modem and simplified form the similar provisions of Sec. 24, par. 3, and Sec. 256, par. 3, of the Judicial Code of 1911 ‘savings to suitors in all cases the right of a common-law remedy where the common law is competent to give it’. 5 The latter clause has been held to authorize any competent court which has jurisdiction of the parties to entertain a civil action at law for the enforcement of a right conferred by the maritime law where the right is of such nature that adequate relief may be given in such an action. 6 “It is settled that a seaman s right to damages for a maritime tort and his right to maintenance and cure may each be adequately enforced in a civil action at law and that state courts of general common law jurisdiction may, if they acquire jurisdiction of the parties, entertain such actions for the enforcement of those rights.” 7”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“from 1875 to 1950 there is not to be found a hint or suggestion to cast doubt on the conviction that the language of that statute (§ 1331) was taken straight from Art. III, § 2, cl. 1 (of the Constitution), extending the judicial power of the United States `to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.' Indeed what little legislative history there is * * * indicates that this was the source. Thus the Act of 1875 (creating the predecessor of § 1331) drew on the scope of this provision of clause 1, just as the Judiciary Act of 1789 (creating the admiralty jurisdiction) reflected the constitutional authorization of clause 1 of section 2 (sic), which extended the judicial power to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction.”
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.