Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 272 U.S. 50 - International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty

International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty’s Empirical Analysis

272 U.S. 50 · 1926

Citation profile

626
cited by 626 later decisions
91
cited 91 times by the Supreme Court
20
states following
September 2021
most recently cited

205 federal appellate · 95 district · 92 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 626 later decisions (91 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2021 · most notably Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki (1946), Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn (1953)

205 federal appellate · 95 district · 92 state decisions — followed in 20 states

126019261930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad · Atlantic Transport Company of West Virginia v. Frank Imbrovek · Haverty v. International Stevedoring Co. · Cassil v. United States Emergency Fleet Corp.

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

  1. “a maritime service formerly rendered by the ship's crew.”
    14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[a]ny seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “It is true that for most purposes, as the word is commonly used, stevedores are not ‘ seamen.’”
    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.