Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 274 U.S. 117 - New York Dock Co v. The Poznan

New York Dock Co v. The Poznan’s Empirical Analysis

274 U.S. 117 · 1927

Citation profile

316
cited by 316 later decisions
13
cited 13 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
November 2018
most recently cited

94 federal appellate · 31 district · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 316 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2018 · most notably Collie v. Fergusson (1930), United States v. Equitable Trust Co. (1931)

94 federal appellate · 31 district · 13 state decisions

5301927193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedThe Poznan (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Fosdick v. Schall · Thomas v. Western Car Co. · Pierce v. United States · Rea v. The Eclipse

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

  1. “for the common benefit of those interested in [the] fund.”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““We need not inquire here into the exaet limits of the powers of courts of admiralty to administer equitable relief as distinguished from that peculiar to the courts of admiralty. This is not a suit, as the court below seemed to think, for the enforcement of’ an equitable lien. The court of admiralty is asked, in the exercise of its admiralty jurisdiction, to ad.minister the fund within its custody in accordance with equitable principles as is its wont. Cf. United States v. Cornell Steamboat Co., 202 U. S. 184 , 194, 26 S. Ct. 648 , 50 L. Ed. 987 ; The Eclipse, 135 U. S. 599 , 608, 10 S. Ct. 873 , 34 L. Ed. 269 ; Benedict, Admiralty [5th Ed.] § 70. It is defraying from the proceeds of the ship in its registry an expense which it has permitted for the common benefit and which, in equity and good conscience, should be satisfied before the libelants may enjoy the fruits of their liens.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “to require that expenses which have contributed either to the preservation or creation of the fund in its custody shall be paid before a general distribution among those entitled to receive it.”
    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.