London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission’s Empirical Analysis
279 U.S. 109 · 1929
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 13 district · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 146 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2007 · most notably Crowell v. Benson (1932), Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland (1972)
45 federal appellate · 13 district · 50 state decisions — followed in 12 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 Gibbons v. Ogden · Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen · Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart · Grant Smith-Porter Ship Co. v. Rohde · Western Fuel Co. v. Garcia
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 146 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The conclusion sought to be drawn by counsel for the Commission from the Rohde and other cases is that workmen’s compensation acts will apply unless their application would interfere with the uniformity of the general maritime law in interstate and foreign commerce, and there is neither here. But this omits one of the grounds for making an exception — that it shall not be prejudicial to the characteristic features of the maritime law. That is just what it would be here, for here we have a transaction on the navigable waters of the United States which in every respect covers all the characteristic features of maritime law and has no other features but those. To apply to such a case a state Compensation Law would certainly be prejudicial to those features. We must hold therefor that it was a violation of the exclusive maritime jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution to apply in this case the California Compensation Act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Difficulties attend every attempt to define the exact limits of admiralty jurisdiction, but it cannot be made to depend upon the power of Congress to regulate commerce, as conferred in the Constitution. They are entirely distinct things, having no necessary connection with one another, and are conferred, in the Constitution, by separate and distinct grants.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. The Lucky Lindy“It is clearly established that the jurisdiction of the admiralty over a maritime tort does not depend upon the wrong having been committed on board a vessel, but rather upon its having been committed upon the high seas or other navigable waters.”
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.