Osaka Shosen Kaisha v. Pacific Export Lumber Co.’s Empirical Analysis
260 U.S. 490 · 1923
Citation profile
93 federal appellate · 31 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 230 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2018 · most notably Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint (1927), Red Cross Line v. Atlantic Fruit Co. (1924)
93 federal appellate · 31 district ·
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedOsaka Shosen Kaisha v. Pacific Export Lumber Co. (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen · Union Fish Co. v. Erickson · Robert Vandewater v. Edward Mills · the Schooner Freeman v. Alvah Buckingham
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 230 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he contract of affreightment itself creates no lien, and this court has consistently declared that the obligation between ship and cargo is mutual and reciprocal and does not attach until the cargo is on board or in the master's custody.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[N]o lien arises in admiralty except in connection with some visible occurrence relating to the vessel or cargo.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is a secret one which may operate to the prejudice of general creditors and purchasers without notice and is therefore stricti juris and cannot be extended by construction, analogy or inference.”
3 later decisions 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.