Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. v. Amirault’s Empirical Analysis
202 F.2d 893 · 1953
Citation profile
69 federal appellate · 15 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 111 later decisions — most recently March 2011 · most notably Busik v. Levine (1973), Templeman v. Chris Craft Corp. (1985)
69 federal appellate · 15 district · 8 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. § 1961 · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 45 U.S.C. § 51 (Federal Employers' Liability Act)
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Brooklyn Sav Bank v. O'Neil Dize · Garrett v. Co · Garrett v. Moore-McCormack 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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]nterest shall be allowed on any money judgment in a civil case recovered in a district court.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“‘The fortuitous circumstance that in the present case there was diversity of citizenship between the parties plaintiff and defendant may give an added basis for jurisdiction in the federal district court[____] But whether such diversity existed or not, it is still true that the substantive law to be applied in determining both liability and the amount of damages to be embodied in the money judgment is federal law, not state law.’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Wherever under the settled principles of general maritime law, as developed in the courts of admiralty, pre-decree interest is allowed as an element of damages on a particular type of maritime tort claim, it may be that if the injured party chooses to bring a civil action on such maritime tort on the law side of a federal or state court, under the so-called “saving clause”, he should be entitled to recover by way of damages the same amount of interest. Cf. Doucette v. Vincent, 1 Cir., 1952, 194 F.2d 834, 838-839 . That would be so if the recovery of such interest is regarded as of the substance of his maritime right, for, as pointed out above, regardless of the forum in which action is brought on a maritime claim, the substantive law to be applied is the general maritime law. 202 F. 2d at 898 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.