Plamals v. The Pinar Del Rio’s Empirical Analysis
277 U.S. 151 · 1928
Citation profile
74 federal appellate · 38 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 218 later decisions (21 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably Lauritzen v. Larsen (1953), Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc. (1960)
74 federal appellate · 38 district · 14 state decisions
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 Lafayette (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on The Osceola · Panama Co v. Johnson · Chelentis v. Luckenbach Steamship Co. · Western Fuel Co. v. Garcia · International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty
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 218 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the system from which these new rules come no lien exists to secure claims arising under them and, of course no right to proceed m rem. We cannot conclude that the mere incorporation into the maritime law of the rights which they create to pursue the employer was enough to give rise to a lien against the vessel upon which the injury occurred. The section under consideration does not undertake to impose liability on the ship itself, but by positive words indicates a contrary purpose. Sea men may invoke, at their election, the relief accorded by the old rules against the ship, or that provided by the new against the employer. But they may not have the benefit of both.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * To subject vessels during all the time allowed by the statute of limitations to secret liens to secure undisclosed and unlimited claims for personal injuries by every seaman who may have suffered injury thereon would be a very serious burden. One desiring to purchase, for example, could only guess vaguely concerning the value. ‘An act to provide for the promotion and maintenance of the American merchant marine’ ought not to be so construed in the absence of compelling language. * * * ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * He was being hoisted up to paint the smoke stack; a rope broke; he fell to the deck and sustained serious injuries. The aceident resulted from the negligence of the mate, who selected a defective rope. Am abundant supply of good rope was on board. * * * The record does not support the suggestion that the Pinar Del Rio was unseaworthy. The mate selected a bad rope when good ones were available. * * *””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sundquist v. Gray
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.