James Hagans v. Farrell Lines, Inc. v. Lavino Shipping Company’s Empirical Analysis
237 F.2d 477 · 1956
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1977 · most notably Gutierrez v. Waterman Steamship Corp. (1963), Thompson v. Calmar Steamship Corp. (1964)
36 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 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 33 U.S.C. § 901
Relies on Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp. · Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn · Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Ceiling & Refitting Corp. · Union Stock Yards Company of Omaha v. Chicago Burlington Quincy Railroad Company · Slattery v. Marra Bros.
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Knowledge of an acquiescence in the existence of a defective appliance or condition may prevent the fruition of the right to indemnity. Restatement, Restitution, Sections 93 and 95, and Reporters’ Notes. But it does not necessarily follow that the burden to indemnify is thereby created.” (Emphasis supplied)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Here, the ground upon which Farrell [shipowner] was held liable to Hagans was its own doing; as between Farrell and Lavino [stevedore], Farrell had assumed the responsibility. If anything, Lavino only contributed to the happening of the accident. But if Lavino failed to perform its work properly, we are constrained to hold that, in the face of mutual violations, Farrell is not entitled to full indemnity, and, of course, it cannot have contribution.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘Were the plaintiff’s injuries caused by the concurring negligence of those in charge of the vessel or the unseaworthiness of the vessel and the employees of Lavino Shipping Company?’ ””
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.