Russell, Poling & Company, Newtown Creek Towing Company and Chester A. Poling, Inc., Libellants-Appellants v. Conners Standard Marine Corporation and the Tug Corporal, and the Tug Russell No. 20 and Russell Bros. Towing Co., Inc., Respondents-Impleaded-Appellee. Russell, Poling & Company, Newtown Creek Towing Company and Chester A. Poling, Inc. v. United States of America, and Third-Fourth-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, (Conners Standard Marine Corporation, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, Russell Bros. Towing Company, Inc., Fourth-Party Defendant-Respondent)’s Empirical Analysis
252 F.2d 167 · 1958
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently February 2016
3 federal appellate ·
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
Relies on Indian Towing Company v. United States · Galbraith v. Busch · F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Seckinger · Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc. v. United States
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . the record contains insufficient evidence upon which a reasonable inference can be drawn as to the time the buoy was off position prior to the accident. Hence, there is no basis for charging the government with constructive notice. . . . [plaintiff] has failed to prove that the buoys were out of position sufficiently long prior to the accident that the employees of the United States should have known of their displacement. Admittedly, proof of this fact is difficult. Nevertheless, it forms a necessary element of plaintiff’s negligence claim so that failure of proof here precludes recovery against the United States. Russell, Poling & Company, supra at 16.”
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.