Stevens v. The White City’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

265 federal appellate · 29 district · 19 state decisions

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

1. “such reasonable care and maritime skill as prudent navigators employ for the performance of similar service.”

   15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bosnor, S.A. De C v. Cross-Appellees Cross-Appellants v. Tug L.A. Barrios, Her Engines, Etc., and Delmar Systems, Inc., and Cross-Appellees v. Walton & Sons Stevedoring and Contracting Co., Inc., Defendant-Appellant-Appellee Cross-Appellee, Cross-Appellant and Slatco, Inc., Cross-Appellant Cross-Appellee v. Cheramie Bo-Truc 7, Cross-Appellees, and Reyna International, Inc., Defendant-Cross-Appellee Cross-Appellant, and World Marine Association, Inc., Northwest Insurance Co., and Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London, Defendants-Cross-Appellees · 462 F. Supp. 1362 - Massman Construction Co. v. Sioux City & New Orleans Barge Lines, Inc.

2. “The supplying of power by a vessel, usually one propelled by steam, to tow or draw another is towage. Many vessels, such as barges and canal boats, have no power of their own and are built with a view to receiving their propelling force from other sources. And vessels having motive power often employ auxiliary power to assist them in moving about harbors and docks. [ 10 ]”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cont'l Ins. Co. v. L&L Marine Transp., Inc. · Continental Insurance Company v. L&L Marine Transp

3. ““The tug does not have exclusive control over the tow but only so far as is necessary to enable the tug and those in charge of her to fulfill the engagement. They do not have control such as belongs to common carriers and other bailees. They have no authority over the master or hands of the towed vessel beyond such as is required to govern the movement of the flotilla. In all other respects and for all other purposes the vessel in tow, its cargo and crew, remain under the authority of its master; and, in emergency the duty is upon him to determine what shall be done for the safety of his vessel and her cargo. In all such cases the right of decision belongs to the master of the tow and not to the master of the tug. A contract merely for towage does not require or contemplate such a delivery as is ordinarily deemed essential to bailment.” (Italics ours.)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 48 Wash. 2d 117 - American Tug Boat Co. v. Washington Toll Bridge Authority · 50 F. Supp. 2d 925 - In Re Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc.