Roper v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. “the vessel clearly represented itself as being entirely without operable equipment and usable gear”). 15 . In the alternative, even if this Court read the seaworthiness cases as implicating the jurisdictional standard applicable at the time such cases were decided, the Court would still conclude that the Vandenberg is a vessel under the current jurisdictional standard as Stewart expressly holds that vessel status no longer turns on whether a ship is”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 584 F. Supp. 2d 862 - Colonna's Shipyard, Inc. v. U.S.A.F. General Hoyt S. Vandenberg

2. ““The District Court did not consider whether the usual warranty of seaworthiness would encompass this sort of shore-based, shore-attached equipment (the same equipment as at bar), for it held there was no warranty of seaworthiness. Since we agree, we also confine ourselves to the holding that there was here no warranty of the seaworthiness of any unloading equipment.” (Emphasis supplied).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cockrell v. A. L. Mechling Barge Lines, Inc.

3. ““Of course, the United States was under a duty to exercise care to see that such things as the vessel’s hatch covers and ladders, with which the stevedores must necessarily work, were reasonably safe for use.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kleveland v. United States