Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 281 U.S. 38 - Lindgren v. United States

Lindgren v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

281 U.S. 38 · 1930

Citation profile

554
cited by 554 later decisions
47
cited 47 times by the Supreme Court
23
states following
December 2019
most recently cited

188 federal appellate · 70 district · 101 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 554 later decisions (47 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2019 · most notably Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc. (1970), Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp. (1964)

188 federal appellate · 70 district · 101 state decisions — followed in 23 states

1130193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedUnited States v. Lindgren (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on The Osceola · Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad · The Harrisburg · Baltimore Co v. Phillips · Panama Co v. Johnson

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

  1. “[S]such statutes 'were not a part of the general maritime law' and were recognized only because Congress had not legislated on the subject.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of persoqnal injury to railway employees shall apply; and in case of the death of any seaman as a result of any such personal injury the personal representative of such seaman may maintain an action for damages at law with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States conferring or regulating the right of action for death in the case of railway employees shall be applicable. * * *””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"[T]he laws of the several States were regarded as determinative of the liability of employers engaged in interstate commerce for injuries received by their employees while engaged in such commerce. But that was because Congress, although empowered to regulate that subject, had not acted thereon, and because the subject is one which falls within the police power of the States in absence of action by Congress." 281 U.S. at 45 , 74 L.Ed. at 692 , 50 S.Ct. at 210 , quoting In Re Second Employers Liability Cases, 223 U.S. 1, 54-55 , 56 L.Ed. 327, 348 , 32 S.Ct. 169, 177 (1912). (Citations omitted). [5]”
    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.