Langnes v. Green’s Empirical Analysis
282 U.S. 531 · 1931
Citation profile
686 federal appellate · 97 district · 279 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,710 later decisions (153 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), Dandridge v. Williams (1970)
686 federal appellate · 97 district · 279 state decisions — followed in 35 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 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange · United States v. American Ry Express Co Southeastern Express Co · Binderup v. Pathe Exchange, Inc. · Dorchy v. State of Kansas
Cited together with Ex parte Green · Lake Tankers Corp. v. Henn · United States v. American Ry Express Co Southeastern Express Co · The Steamship Styria v. James L Morgan · Canada Malting Co. v. Paterson Steamships, Ltd.
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 1,710 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“with regard to what is right and equitable under the circumstances and the law.”
44 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The difference in the effect of adopting one or the other of the two alternatives presented to the district court was obvious. To retain the cause would be to preserve the right of the shipowner, but to destroy the right of the suitor in the state court to a commonlaw remedy; to remit the cause to the state court would be to preserve the rights of both parties. The mere statement of these diverse results is sufficient to demonstrate the justice of the latter course; and we do not doubt that, in the exercise of a sound discretion, the district court, following that course, should have granted respondent’s motion to dissolve the restraining order so as to permit the cause to proceed in the state court, retaining, as a matter of precaution, the petition for a limitation of liability to be dealt with in the possible ... event that the right of the petitioner to a limited liability might be brought into question in the state court.... The failure to do this, in our opinion, constituted an abuse of discretion subject to the correcting power of the appellate court below and of this court.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The last sentence of Section 185 provides that on compliance with its requirements (i. e. filing a petition within the six months period together with paying into court or posting a bond for the value of the ship or transferring the ship to a trustee) ‘all claims and proceedings against the owner with respect to the matter in question shall cease.’ Section 1333 of the Judicial Code confers upon the District Courts exclusive original jurisdiction of any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction ‘saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.’ The two provisions are in obvious conflict. On the whole the policy of the Limitation Act has prevailed, so that in most limitation situations the ‘suitors’ are in fact deprived of their choice of forum.” 10 On this subject, they say further: “When either of the components in the standard situation is lacking — - that is, when there is only one claim or when the aggregate of all,claims will not exhaust the available limitation fund — the district court with which a petition for limitation of liability is filed will not enjoin the prosecution of claims in other courts, although in most situations it will retain jurisdiction of the case for the purpose of deciding the limitation issue, if, as and when such a decision becomes necessary. In this way the courts have sought, within the framework of the Limitation Act, to give effect to the policy of the saving to suitors clause. The working out o”
4 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.