Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 26 F.2d 334 - In re O'Donnell

In re O'Donnell’s Empirical Analysis

26 F.2d 334 · 1928

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
February 1964
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 5 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 1964

11 federal appellate · 5 district ·

8019281930194019501960decided

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 Sacramento Nav Co v. Salz · The J. P. Donaldson · Short v. The Columbia · The Coastwise · Baltimore & Boston Barge Co. v. Eastern Coal Co.

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

  1. “"Finally, it is argued that the appellees, to limit their liability, must surrender, not only the tug, but the barges, each being by hypothesis a constituent part of the `vessel' exonerated. We agree that, if the tug and barges are to be deemed one vessel under the Harter Act, they must be equally so considered under the limitation statute. The last was decided in The Columbia, 73 F. 226 (C.C.A. 9), a case expressly approved in Sacramento Nav. Co. v. Salz [ 273 U.S. 326 , 47 S.Ct. 368 , 71 L.Ed. 663 ], and indeed used as a basis for the result there reached. There can be no question that, if both vessels had been owned in common, both would have had to be surrendered here. But the limitation statute requires a person liable for a ship's tort to surrender no interest in her beyond his own. On the contrary, it expressly provides that he shall be exonerated upon surrendering whatever that interest may be. U.S.Code, title 46, §§ 183, 189 (46 USCA §§ 183, 189; Comp. St. §§ 8021, 8028). Thus there is no inconsistency in at once saying that the two vessels are one, and in allowing limitation upon surrender of the tug."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.