Union Fish Co. v. Erickson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

76 federal appellate · 37 district · 26 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 244 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In entering into this contract the parties contemplated no service in California. They were making an engagement for the services of the master of the vessel, the duties to be performed in the waters of Alaska, mainly upon the sea. The maritime law controlled in this respect, and was not subject to limitation because the particular engagement happened to be made in California.. The parties must be presumed to have had in contemplation the system of maritime law under which it was made.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart · Netherlands American Steam Nav. Co. v. Gallagher

2. ““One thing, however, is unquestionable: The Constitution must have referred to a system of law coextensive with and operating uniformly in the whole country. It certainly could not have been the intention to place the rules and limits of maritime law under the disposal and regulation of the several states.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rodgers & Hagerty, Inc. v. City of New York

3. “The Circuit Court of Appeals correctly held that this contract was maritime in its nature and an action in admiralty thereon for its breach could not be defeated by the statute of California relied upon by the petitioner.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart