Paduano v. Yamashita Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha & Norton’s Empirical Analysis
221 F.2d 615 · 1955
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2014 · most notably Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co. (1959), Bartholomew v. Universe Tankships, Inc. (1959)
18 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 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. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1333 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1873 · 28 U.S.C. § 2073
Relies on Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn · Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen · Panama Co v. Johnson · Garrett v. Co · Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The constitution certainly contemplates these as three distinct classes of cases; and if they are distinct, the grant of jurisdiction over one of them, does not confer jurisdiction over the other two. The discrimination made between them, in the constitution, is ... conclusive against their identity.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. 446 F. Supp. 2d 88 - Constructive Hands, Inc. v. Baker · In RE: MILLENIUM SEACARRIERS, INC., DEBTOR, UNIVERSAL OIL LTD, LIBERIAN INTERNATIONAL SHIP & CORPORATE REGISTRY, LLC v. ALLFIRST BANK, FORMERLY KNOWN AS FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MARYLAND, FORMERLY KNOWN AS WAYLAND INVESTMENT FUNDS, LLC, ASPIDA TRAVEL, LTD, ASSURANCE FORENINGEN SKULD (GJENSIDIG)—DEN DAN, BREAKBULK MARINE SERVICES, LTD., CANFORNAV, LTD., THE CREW OF THE DEBTOR'S VESSELL DET NORSKE VERITAS FUEL AND MARINE MARKETING, GULF STATES MARINE, INC, IHI MARINE CO., LTD., KENT TRADE & FINANCE, MARITIME TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF RUSSIA, OMNI NAVIGATION, LTD., ORIENT SHIPPING, PACNAV, S.A., PANCOAST TRADING, S.A., TOTAL FINA ELF LUBRIFIANTS, S.A., UNISERVICE MEDITERRA, PRAXIS ENERGY AGENTS S.A., PRAXIS ENERGY AGENTS S.A. v. ALLFIRST BANK, FORMERLY KNOWN AS FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MARYLAND, FORMERLY KNOWN AS WAYLAND INVESTMENTS FUNDS, LLC, MILLENIUM SEACARRIERS, INC., IVY NAVIGATION, LTD., MILLENIUM II, INC., MILLENIUM IV, INC., MILLENIUM V, INC., MILLENIUM VI, INC., MILLENIUM ALEKSANDER, INC., MILLENIUM AMETHYST, INC., MILLENIUM ASSET INC., MILLENIUM BALTIC, INC., ASPIDA TRAVEL, LTD., ASSURANCE FORENINGEN SKULD (GJENSIDIG)—DEN DAN, BREAKBULK MARINE SERVICES, LTD., CANFORNAV, LTD., THE CREW OF THE DEBTOR'S VESSELL DET NORSKE VERITAS FUEL AND MARINE MARKETING, GULF STATES MARINE, INC, IHI MARINE CO., LTD., KENT TRADE & FINANCE, MARITIME TRANSPORT WORKERS, UNION OF RUSSIA, OMNI NAVIGATION, LTD., ORIENT SHIPPING, PACNAV, S.A., PANCOAST TRADING S.A., TOTAL FINA ELF LUBRIFIANTS, S.A., UNISERVICE MEDITERRA““In view of the persistence of this legislative attitude and in the absence of any indication that there are situations in which it has not prevailed, we are constrained to conclude that the Congress, in enacting Section 1331 and its predecessor provisions, intended to exclude from its scope, cases such as the one now before us, in which the general maritime law is the sole substantive basis for awarding the relief claimed in the complaint.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(b) Any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties. Any other such action shall be removable only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.””
2 later decisions 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.