Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
305 U.S. 424 · 1939
Citation profile
471 federal appellate · 51 district · 106 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 946 later decisions (26 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2019 · most notably Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki (1946), Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn (1953)
471 federal appellate · 51 district · 106 state decisions — followed in 14 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedSmith v. Socony Vacuum Oil Co. (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 45 U.S.C. § 51 (Federal Employers' Liability Act)
Relies on The Osceola · Calmar Ss Corporation v. Taylor · 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 946 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any rule of assumption of risk in admiralty, whatever its scope, must be applied in conjunction with the established admiralty doctrine of comparative negligence and in harmony with it. Under that doctrine contributory negligence, however gross, is not a bar to recovery but only mitigates damages.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“avoid, within reasonable limits, the application of rules of the common law which would affect [seamen] harshly because of the special circumstances surrounding their calling.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We think that the consistent development of the maritime law in conformity to its traditional policy of affording adequate protection to seamen through an exaction of a high degree of responsibility of owners for the seaworthiness of vessels and the safety of their appliances will be best served by applying the rule of comparative negligence, rather than that of assumption of risk, to the seaman who makes use of a defective appliance knowing that a safe one is available.””
6 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.