Roth v. Cox’s Empirical Analysis
210 F.2d 76 · 1954
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1993
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1333 · 45 U.S.C. § 56 (Federal Employers' Liability Act)
Relies on Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki · Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn · Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad · The Harrisburg · Panama Co v. Johnson
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Jones Act, 46 USCA § 688 provides that a seaman suffering injury “in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, . .. and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply; and in case of the death of any seaman as a result of any such personal injury the personal representative of such seaman may maintain an action for damages at law .. . and in such action all statutes of the United States conferring or regulating the right of action for death in the case of railway employees shall be applicable.” This section is specifically drawn to give rights to employees against employers and against no others. It refers to injuries sustained in the course of “his” (seaman’s) employment. It says that “Jurisdiction in such actions shall be under the court of the district in which the defendant employer resides or in which his principal office is located.” Title 45, USCA § 51 also refers to actions between employer and employee. Thus, there is nothing in the Jones Act which grants to seaman a right to bring an action against anyone except his employer ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“To maintain an action under the Jones Act the claimant must establish that at the time of the injury there existed between the seaman and the primary defendant the relationship of employee and employer. This requirement is based on the fact that the Jones Act, which refers to injuries sustained in the course of the seaman's employment, is specifically drawn to give seamen rights only against their employers.”
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.