Gerrity v. Bark Kate Cann’s Empirical Analysis
2 F. 241 · 1880
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 16 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1971 · most notably Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn (1953), The Max Morris (1890)
10 federal appellate · 16 district ·
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 Thomas v. . Winchester · Railroad Company v. Hanning · Board of Commissioners of Tippecanoe County v. Lucas Treasurer · Nicholson v. . the Erie Railway Co. · The Washington
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Tiiis neglect was tlie neglect of a maritime duty, and attaches to the ship herself. Not only did the neglect occur upon navigable water, but in the performance of a service necessary to be performed to enable the ship to receive her cargo. The stowing of this dunnage was part of the ordinary duty of the ship’s crew, and in this case was done by the crew. The object of stowing the dunnage was to facilitate the taking in of the very cargo upon which the libelant was employed at the time he was hurt. Still, further, the dun-nage and plank that, by reason of neglect in the manner of stowing, fell upon the libelant, were part of the apparel and furniture of the ship.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. The Wyneric““There was a relation between the shipowner and the libelant, arising, not out of the mere presence of the libelant on board the ship, but out of the service he was then engaged in performing, the necessity of that service to the shipowner, and the circumstances of the libelant’s employment to perform that service. The libelant had therefore a right to be where he was, and it follows that there was a duty on the part of 1he owner to see to it that the dunnage and plank stowed above him were so seemed as to prevent its falling upon him of its own weight.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Watts v. Jensen
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.