Messel v. Foundation Co.’s Empirical Analysis
274 U.S. 427 · 1927
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2005 · most notably Crowell v. Benson (1932), Garrett v. Co (1942)
17 federal appellate · 45 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen · The Osceola · Baltimore Co v. Phillips · Panama Co v. Johnson · Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The principles applicable to Messel’s recovery, should he have one, must be limited to those which the admiralty law of the United States prescribes, including the applicable section of the federal Employer’s Liability Act (June 5, 1920), incorporated in the maritime law” by Act June 5, 1920, § 33, c. 250, 41 Stat. 988 , 1007 (46 USCA § 688; Comp. St. § 8337a).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Clearly, therefore, suit for such a tort is not excluded from the jurisdiction of the state court under section 2315 unless the federal law forbids. To hold that the federal law forbids would be to deprive the petitioner in this case of the right secured to him under Judiciary Act 1789, § 9, as now contained in paragraph third of section 256 of the Judicial Code (Comp.St. § 1233), which gives exclusive jurisdiction in courts of the United States of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, ‘saving to suitors in all cases the right of a common-law remedy where the common law is competent to give it.’ “Section 2315 has been held by the Supreme Court of Louisiana to furnish the equivalent of the common law. In Gray v. New Orleans Dry Dock & Shipping Co., 146 La. 826 , 84 So. 109 , a case very much like this, a workman was injured while engaged in maritime employment. His action invoked article 2315 of the Civil Code. The respondent in the case pleaded that the petitioner’s right of action, if any, was governed by the Workmen’s Compensation Act, No. 20 of 1914, and not by the provisions of article 2315 of the Revised Civil Code of Louisiana, as pleaded by the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court of Louisiana said: “ ‘The work in which plaintiff was engaged at the time he was injured was maritime in its nature; his employment was a maritime contract, and his claim for damages was enforceable in the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. For that reason, before the passage o”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“to suitors in all cases the right of a common-law remedy where the common law is competent to give it.”
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.