In re East River Towing Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 federal appellate · 21 district · 3 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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The short point is that the later aet determines the extent of the seaman’s súbstantive rights and the measure of damages. Panama R. R. Co. v. Johnson, 264 U. S. 375 , 391, 44 S. Ct. 391 , 68 L. Ed. 748 . * * * If there is no surrender of the ship, which we presume is made relatively rarely, the limited liability statutes play no part. Section 33 has no relation to means of collection but only to principles of liability and the ordinary course of trial. Naturally therefore the limited liability laws are not mentioned in the list of statutes repealed in section 2 [46 USCA § 862; Comp. St. § 8146%a] 5 yet there can be no doubt that those laws would apply unless repealed. No sufficient reason is offered for the extraordinary preference over other claims that would be given to seamen were the decree of the District Court sustained. When a preference in respect of seamen’s wages was intended, it was expressed. * * * On the other hand, it has been laid down with reference to this same section 33 that an intention to depart from a policy deliberately settled in a general statute is not lightly to be assumed. * * * The wholesale adoption of the law for railroads above mentioned must be taken as an adoption of principles, not as a basis for meticulous discovery of conflict with an established system in matters of detail. The choice of a jury trial is given when things take their ordinary course, not to break in upon the settled mode of adjustment when the ship is given up.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Crosby Fisheries, Inc. · Tug Allie-B Inc Dann Ocean Towing v. United States of America Allied Towing Corp

2. ““(1) If an action at law be brought such as is described in Merchant Marine Act 1920, § 33, can the prosecution thereof be enjoined by the injunction provided for in admiralty rulé 51? “(2) Has Merchant Marine Act 1920, § 33, impliedly repealed the statute regarding limitation of liability of shipowners so far as claims or suits based on personal injuries to or death of seamen are concerned?” "”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. El Mundo · In re Crosby Fisheries, Inc.

3. “a right sanctioned by the maritime law may be enforced through any appropriate proceeding recognized at common law/’ And the jurisdiction of the state courts to enforce the new common law right made a part of the maritime law, is necessarily affirmed by the provision contained in § 6 of the Employer’s Liability Act 2 — plainly, we think, incorporated in the Merchant Marine Act by the generic reference — that jurisdiction of the federal courts under the Act shall be concurrent with that of the courts of the several States, and no case arising thereunder when brought in any state court of competent jurisdiction shall be removed to any federal court. Nor is the jurisdiction in suits under § 33 of the Merchant Marine Act limited to the federal courts — as has been sometimes held in the District Courts — by its provision that jurisdiction “ shall be under the court of the district”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Engel v. Davenport