Vickers v. Tumey’s Empirical Analysis
290 F.2d 426 · 1961
Citation profile
72 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently July 2014 · most notably Davis v. Hill Engineering, Inc. (1977), Spinks v. Chevron Oil Co. (1975)
72 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 state decisions
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 Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co. · Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad · Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc. · Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line, Inc. · Farrell v. United States
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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]here must not be a duplication in the final award whether it is done by a Judge sitting in admiralty, by a jury hearing both phases where jurisdiction exists, or partly by the jury and partly by the Judge”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Seaworthy * * * means that under the circumstances existing at the time of the injury, the vessel and her equipment * * * were reasonably fit to perform the duty of safety, which this vessel owed to human beings aboard her, and to perform duties for which they were intended.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This duty includes a duty to inspect the third party’s property for hazards and to take precautions to protect the employee from possible defects. Although an employee may be on another’s property for only a short time, and although the employer may have no supervision over the property, there is no de minimus rule. The “brevity of the sojourn” is irrelevant with respect to the duty to provide a safe place to work . . . . The employer may protect itself by simply refusing to permit its employees from going on the property. .”
1 later decision 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.