Nogueira v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad’s Empirical Analysis
281 U.S. 128 · 1930
Citation profile
121 federal appellate · 32 district · 59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 356 later decisions (55 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2019 · most notably Crowell v. Benson (1932), Wilburn Boat Company v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company (1955)
121 federal appellate · 32 district · 59 state decisions — followed in 18 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen · Panama Co v. Johnson · Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Horton · Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart · Atlantic Transport Company of West Virginia v. Frank Imbrovek
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 356 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Employers are thus defined in section 2, subdivision (4), 44 Stat. 1425 (U. S. C. tit. 33, § 902, 33 USCA § 902(4): ‘The term “employer” means an employer any of whose employees are employed in maritime employment, in whole or in part, upon the navigable waters of the United States (including any dry dock).’ The term is not defined otherwise, with respect either to the nature or the scope of the enterprises in which the employer is engaged. The definition is manifestly broad enough to embrace a railroad company, provided it has employees who ‘are employed in maritime employment, in whole or in part, upon the navigable waters of the United States.’ “The employees subject to the act are not defined affirmatively, but section 2, subdivision (3), Id., contains the following limitation : ‘The term “employee” does not include a master or member of a crew of any vessel, nor any person engaged by the master to load or unload or repair any small vessel under eighteen tons net.’ * * * “As the present ease falls directly within the affirmative provisions of section 3 of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 USCA § 903), we look next to the eases specially excepted. Section 3, after the provision quoted above, continues: “ ‘No compensation shall be payable in resi>eet of the disability or death of— •‘ ‘(1) A master or member of a crew of any vessel, nor any person engaged by the master to load or unload or repair any small vessel under eighteen tons net; or “‘(2”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The general scheme of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act was to provide compensation to employees engaged in maritime employment, except as stated, for disability or death resulting from injury occurring upon the navigable waters of the United States where recovery through workmen’s compensation proceedings might not validly be provided by state law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(1) A master or member of a crew of any vessel, nor any person engaged by the master to load or unload or repair any small vessel under eighteen tons net; or”
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.