Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 278 U.S. 130 - Pacific Co v. Peterson

Pacific Co v. Peterson’s Empirical Analysis

278 U.S. 130 · 1928

Citation profile

573
cited by 573 later decisions
40
cited 40 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

222 federal appellate · 57 district · 60 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 573 later decisions (40 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn (1953), Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc. (1960)

222 federal appellate · 57 district · 60 state decisions — followed in 11 states

13501928193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 The Osceola · Baltimore Co v. Phillips · Cohens v. Virginia · Panama Co v. Johnson · Cohens v. Virginia

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

  1. “the right to maintenance, cure and wages, implied in law as a contractual obligation arising out of the nature of the employment, is independent of the right to indemnity or compensatory damages for an injury caused by negligence; and these two rights are consistent and cumulative”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “That the vessel and her owner are, both by English and American law, liable to an indemnity for injuries received by seamen in consequence of the unseaworthiness of the ship, or a failure to supply and keep in order the proper appliances appurtenant to the ship.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he right under the new [Jones Act] rule [allows a seaman] to recover compensatory damages for injuries caused by negligence”
    2 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.