Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 208 F.2d 218 - Morales v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.

Morales v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

208 F.2d 218 · 1953

Citation profile

77
cited by 77 later decisions
2
states following
July 1992
most recently cited

47 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently July 1992 · most notably Ac Aukerman Company v. Rl Chaides Construction Co (1992), Larios v. Victory Carriers, Inc. (1963)

47 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 state decisions

38019531960197019801990decided

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 Holmberg v. Armbrecht · Gardner v. Panama Railroad · Southern Pac Co v. Bogert · The Key City · Redman 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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““As to their claim of ignorance of their legal right to sue a third party, the steamship lines which had contracted with their employer, we know of no principle which enables persons to plead, not excusable ignorance of facts, but of the law which accorded them the right to sue.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It will not do, as appellants seem to insist they may, to claim that under this showing of negligent delay, the burden of showing prejudice in fact was upon the respondent. It is settled law: that in situations of this kind, where the libel shows on its face that it is barred by laches, prejudice to the respondent is presumed until the contrary is made to appear; that it is incumbent on the libellant to show facts excusing the delay; and that the libellant has the burden of rebutting the presumption of prejudice.” 208 F.2d at 221 .”
    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.