Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 202 U.S. 184 - United States v. Cornell Steamboat Co.

United States v. Cornell Steamboat Co.’s Empirical Analysis

202 U.S. 184 · 1906

Citation profile

158
cited by 158 later decisions
15
cited 15 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
October 2010
most recently cited

59 federal appellate · 36 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 158 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2010 · most notably Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co. (1959), Schoenamsgruber v. Hamburg American Line (1935)

59 federal appellate · 36 district · 1 state decisions

400190619101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on State Railroad Tax Cases Taylor Collector et al. v. Secor et al. · United States v. Kirby · Cope v. Vallette Dry Dock Co. · the Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon Others · Supervisors v. United States

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 158 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The ease of Five Steel Barges, L. R. 15 Prob. Div. 142, is authority for the proposition that- the remedy in personam is not confined to the legal owner of the property saved, but extends to one who has a direct pecuniary interest in such property. This was an aetion against five barges, two of which belonged to the government, with whom the defendants were under contract to build and deliver the barges. An action in rem was brought against the three barges, and an action in personam against the defendants, who had contracted with the government and given it possession of the two barges. The court sustained the aetion in personam thinking it ‘perfectly clear that an aetion in personam lies against the owners of a vessel which has been saved, even though the property has been transferred to. others and the lien lost/ Continuing, the president of the court, Sir James Hannen, observed: ‘I think it exists in eases where the defendant has an interest in the property saved, which interest has been saved by the fact that the property is brought into a position of security. The jurisdiction which the court exereises in salvage eases is of a peculiarly equitable character. The right to salvage may arise out of an actual contract, but it does not necessarily do so. It is a legal liability arising out of the fact that property has been saved; that the -owner of the property, who has had the benefit of it, shall make remuneration to those who have conferred the benefit upon him, notwith”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Although courts of admiralty hare no general equity jurisdiction, and cannot afford equitable relief in a direct proceeding for that purpose, they may apply equitable principles to subjects within their jurisdiction, and in the distribution of proceeds in their possession or under their control may give effect to equitable claims.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “at whose request and for whose benefit the salvage service has been performed.”
    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.