Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 285 F.2d 119 - Afran Transport Co., as Owner of the S.S. Burgan, Etc., Libelant-Appellant v. The Motor Tanker Bergechief, A/s Sneffon, Claimant-Appellee. A/s Sneffon, as Owner of the Motor Tanker Bergechief, Cross-Libelant-Appellee v. The S.S. Burgan and Afran Transport Co., Cross-Claimant-Respondent-Appellant

Afran Transport Co., as Owner of the S.S. Burgan, Etc., Libelant-Appellant v. The Motor Tanker Bergechief, A/s Sneffon, Claimant-Appellee. A/s Sneffon, as Owner of the Motor Tanker Bergechief, Cross-Libelant-Appellee v. The S.S. Burgan and Afran Transport Co., Cross-Claimant-Respondent-Appellant’s Empirical Analysis

285 F.2d 119 · 1960

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
August 1994
most recently cited

18 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently August 1994 · most notably Moore-M v. Richardson (1961), Independent Bulk Transport, Inc. v. The Vessel "Morania Abaco" (1982)

18 federal appellate ·

1401960197019801990decided

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 Davis v. Illinois · Haas v. Palace Hotel Co. · United States v. Petroleum Nav. Co. · Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. v. The Tank Steamship Esso Camden · Afran Transport Co., Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. The Bergechief, Her Engines, Etc., A/s Sneffon, Appellant-Cross-Appellee. A/s Sneffon, Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. The Burgan, Her Engines, Etc., and Afran Transport Company, Appellee-Cross-Appellant

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

  1. ““But we would not exclude all discretion in the mutual fault collision case; thus if one vessel is grossly at fault the award of interest to the other may ameliorate somewhat the harsh American rule that division of damages must be equal without reference to the degree of fault. Here under the circumstances shown in our opinion in Afran Transport Co. v. The Bergechief, .supra, 2 Cir., 274 F.2d 469 , we think denial of pre-decree interest was right.” Ibid.”
    3 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.