The Jason’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

71 federal appellate · 34 district · 2 state decisions

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

1. “If the owner of the steamer shall have exercised due diligence to make said steamer in all respects seaworthy and properly manned, equipped and supplied, it is hereby agreed that in case of danger, damage or disaster resulting from fault or negligence of the pilot, master or crew in the navigation or management of the steamer, or from latent or other defects, unseaworthiness of the steamer, whether existing at time of shipment, or at the beginning of the voyage, but not discoverable by due diligence, the consignee or owners of the cargo shall not be exempted from liability for contribution in General Average, or for any special charges incurred, but, with the shipowner, shall contribute in General Average, and shall pay such special charges, as if such danger, damage or disaster had not resulted from such fault, negligence, latent or other defects or unseaworthiness; * * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 15 F. Supp. 745 - The Maria

2. ““In our opinion, so far as the Harter Act has relieved the shipowner from responsibility for the negligence of his master and crew, it is no longer against the policy of the law for him to contract with the cargo owners for a participation in general average contribution growing out of such negligence; and, since the clause contained in the bills of lading of The Jason’s cargo admits the shipowner to share in the general average only under circumstances where by the act he is relieved from responsibility, the provision in question is valid, and entitles him to contribution under the circumstances stated.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bravo v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins.

3. ““Prior to the Harter Act it was established that a common carrier by sea could not by any agreement in the bill of lading exempt himself from responding to the owner of cargo for damages arising from the negligence of the master or crew of the vessel. Liverpool & G. W. Steam Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397 , 438 [ 9 Sup. Ct. 469 , 32 L. Ed. 788 ], following New York C. Railroad Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357 [ 21 L. Ed. 627 ].””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bravo v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins.