Dragich v. Strika’s Empirical Analysis
309 F.2d 161 · 1962
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 2006
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 Vaughan v. Atkinson · Calmar Ss Corporation v. Taylor · Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co. · Ahmed v. United States · Lipscomb v. Groves
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“should not be hampered by restrictive distinctions which would defeat its broad beneficial purposes.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(1, 2) There is of course no dispute with the general rule that a seaman who falls ill while in the service of his vessel is entitled to wages, maintenance and cure. This obligation of the ship-owner is deeply rooted in centuries of maritime law, and is considered to be an incident of or an implied provision of contracts of maritime employment. See generally Calmar S. S. Corp. v. Taylor, 303 U.S. 525 , 58 S.Ct. 651 , 82 L.Ed. 993 (1937), and Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527 , 82 S.Ct. 997 , 8 L.Ed.2d 88 (1962). (3, 4) The obligation is not related in any way to negligence or fault of the shipowner, nor is it limited to cases where the seaman’s employment is the ‘cause’ of the illness. Calmar S. S. Corp. v. Taylor, supra, 303 U.S. at 527 , 58 S.Ct. 651 . Typically, admiralty courts have given liberal interpretation to the obligation for the protection of seamen who are considered, in a sense, wards of the court. As the Supreme Court pointed out in Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co., 318 U.S. 724 , 63 S.Ct. 930 , 87 L.Ed. 1107 (1942), the obligation of the ship-owner to provide maintenance and cure is among the most pervasive and should not be hampered by restrictive distinctions which would defeat its broad beneficial purposes. Thus even in cases where the Libelant was suffering from a pre-exist-ing illness, the courts have granted maintenance and cure unless it could be shown that the seaman knowingly or fraudulently concealed the illness from the shipowner. Couts v. Erickson, 241”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] seaman who falls ill while in the service of his vessel is entitled to... maintenance and cure.”
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.