the Francis McDonald Thames Towboat Co v. The Francis McDonald’s Empirical Analysis
254 U.S. 242 · 1920
Citation profile
103 federal appellate · 25 district · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 259 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2019 · most notably East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc. (1986), Grant Smith-Porter Ship Co. v. Rohde (1922)
103 federal appellate · 25 district · 33 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 North Pacific Steamship Co. v. Hall Bros. Marine Railway & Shipbuilding Co. · William Tucker v. Leo Alexandroff · People's Ferry Co. v. Beers · Edwards v. Elliott
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 259 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Cjounsel for appellant insist that there is a broad distinction between [a vessel construction contract] and one for work and material to finish a vessel after she has been launched and is waterborne.... [However,] we think the same reasons which exclude such contracts from admiralty jurisdiction likewise apply to agreements made after the hull is in the water, for the work and material necessary to consummate a partial construction and bring the vessel into condition to function as intended.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Under decisions of this court the settled rule is that a contract for the complete construction of a ship or supplying materials therefor is nonmaritime, and not within the admiralty jurisdiction.” Thames Towboat Co. v. The Francis McDonald, 254 U.S. 242 , 243, 41 S.Ct. 65 , 66, 65 L.Ed. 245 .”
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.