Panama R. v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 federal appellate · 11 district · 4 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““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 personal injury to railway employees shall apply; and in ease 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 ease of raffway employees shall be applicable. Jurisdiction in such actions shall be under the court of the district in which the defendant employer resides or in which his principal office is located.” U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1923, vol. 2, § 8337a.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hansen v. United States

2. ““It is well-settled law that the jurisdiction of courts over the persons of the parties to the suit is one of personal privilege, and if a party appears, failing to make objection to the jurisdiction over his person in limine, the objection is waived. Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. [U.S.] 657 [ 9 L.Ed. 1233 ]; Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. [U.S.] 300 [ 9 L.Ed. 1093 ]; Harkness v. Hyde, 98 U.S. 476 [ 25 L.Ed. 237 ], The failure to object at the proper time is a waiver of what is a personal privilege, and is a consent to the jurisdiction.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 166 Cal. App. 2d 232 - Brown v. Douglas Aircraft Co.

3. “The maritime law imposed upon the shipowner the risk incident to the use of defective and dangerous appliances, and we see nothing in the new legislation which changes the law in this regard. The Federal Employers' Liability Act [ 45 U.S.C.A. §§ 51-59 ] did not create the law. It simply recognizes it as it already existed and restricted it in the classes of cases embraced in section 4 of the act [ 45 U.S.C.A. § 54 ].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. The New Berne