The Navemar Compania Espanola De Navegacion Maritima Sa v. The Navemar’s Empirical Analysis
303 U.S. 68 · 1938
Citation profile
92 federal appellate · 10 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 239 later decisions (22 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Sabbatino (1964), Guaranty Trust Co of New York v. United States (1938)
92 federal appellate · 10 district · 25 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedThe Navemar (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on The United States v. Jonah Crosby · the Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon Others · Berizzi Bros Co v. The Pesaro · In re Muir
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 239 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the claim is recognized and allowed by the Executive Branch of the government, it is then the duty of the courts to release the vessel upon' appropriate suggestion by the Attorney General of the United States, or other officer acting under his direction.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The District Court concluded, rightly we think, that the evidence at hand did not support the claim of the suggestion that the Navemar had been in the possession of the Spanish government. The decree of attachment, without more, did not operate to change the possession which, before the decree, was admittedly in petitioner. To accomplish that result, since the decree was in invitum, actual possession by some act of physical dominion or control in behalf of the Spanish government was needful, The Davis, 10 Wall. 15, 21 , 19 L.Ed. 875 ; Long v. Tampico, D.C., 16 F. 491, 493, 494 ; The Attualita, supra [4 Cir., 238 F. 909 ]; The Carlo Poma, 2 Cir., 259 F. 369, 370 , reversed on other grounds 255 U.S. 219 , 41 S.Ct. 309 , 65 L.Ed. 594 , or at least some recognition on the part of the ship’s officers that they were controlling the vessel and crew in behalf of their government. Both were lacking, as was support for any contention that the vessel was in fact employed in public service. See Long v. Tampico, supra, 16 F. 491, 493, 494 ; cf. Berizzi Bros. Co. v. S. S. Pesaro, supra [ 271 U.S. 562 , 46 S.Ct. 611 , 70 L.Ed. 1088 ].””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The respondent will be permitted to intervene for the purpose of asserting the Spanish government’s ownership and right of possession of the vessel, and the order of the District Court will be modified accordingly.””
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.