Hadjipateras v. Pacifica, S. A.’s Empirical Analysis
290 F.2d 697 · 1961
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2010 · most notably Exxon Corp. v. Central Gulf Lines, Inc. (1991), Peralta Shipping Corporation v. Smith & Johnson Corp (1985)
46 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 2107 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Relies on Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co. · Kossick v. United Fruit Co. · Swift & Co. Packers v. Compania Colombiana Del Caribe, S. A. · Archawski v. Hanioti · Milbert v. Bison Laboratories, Inc.
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To begin with, the contract is everything classically known as a maritime contract. It concerns a ship. It relates not only to a ship; its very purpose is to effectuate the physical, economic operation and employment of a vessel. And what is here in controversy are the fruits of such operation. The subject matter, in the sense of the thing, its purpose, and its result all center around the ship. It meets all of the tests both ancient and modern.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . ‘[e]ach application is to be looked at then in the light of the underlying purpose reflected in the statute,’ . . .” Ex parte Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Company (Ex parte Aetna Casualty & Surety Company), 322 F.2d 113 (5th Cir., 1963).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(d) When a judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in making in a civil case (other than a ease in which a child, as defined in section 16-2301, is alleged to be delinquent, neglected, or in need of supervision) a ruling or order not otherwise appeal-able under this section, shall be of the opinion that the ruling or order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for a difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the ruling or order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation or case, he shall so state in writing in the ruling or order. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals may thereupon, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from that ruling or order, if application is made to it within ten days after the issuance or entry of the ruling or order. An application for an appeal under this subsection shall not stay proceedings in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia unless the judge of that court who made such ruling or order or the District of Columbia Court of Appeals or a judge thereof shall so order.”
2 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.