Arizona v. Anelich’s Empirical Analysis
298 U.S. 110 · 1936
Citation profile
210 federal appellate · 39 district · 82 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 513 later decisions (51 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki (1946), Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn (1953)
210 federal appellate · 39 district · 82 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 The Osceola · Panama Co v. Johnson · Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Horton · Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line, Inc. · Chelentis v. Luckenbach Steamship Co.
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 513 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * [W]ith respect to the modified and in some respects enlarged liability imported into the maritime law by the Jones Act * * * the legislation was remedial, for the benefit and protection of seamen who are peculiarly the wards of admiralty. Its purpose was to enlarge that protection * * *. Its provisions * * * are to be liberally construed to attain that end, * * -*>> (Citations omitted.)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“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 ...”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The seaman’s right of indemnity for injuries caused by defective appliances or unseaworthiness seems to have been a development from his privilege to abandon a vessel improperly fitted out. * * * This case [Dixon v. The Cyrus, Fed.Cas. No.3,930, 2 Pet.Adm. 407] was relied on in several early cases recognizing the seaman’s right to consequential damages for injuries resulting from faulty equipment.””
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.