Dannebrog v. Signal Oil & Gas Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

146 federal appellate · 26 district · 6 state decisions

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 346 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Any person furnishing repairs, supplies, towage, use of dry dock or marine railway, or other necessaries, to any vessel, whether foreign or domestic, upon the order of the owner of such vessel, or of a person authorized by the owner, shall have a maritime lien on the vessel, which may be enforced by suit in rem, and it shall not be necessary to allege or prove that credit was given to the vessel.””

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Crimson Yachts v. Betty Lyn II Motor Yacht · Walker v. Barge IBL87

2. “The Act of 1910 by which the transactions with the Clio were governed, after enlarging the right to a maritime lien and providing who shall be presumed to have authority for the owner to procure supplies for the vessel, qualifies the whole in section 3 (Title 46, Section 973) as follows: `But nothing in this Act shall be construed to confer a lien when the furnisher knew, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence could have ascertained, that because of the terms of a charter party, agreement for the sale of the vessel, or for any other reason, the person ordering the repairs, supplies, or other necessaries was without authority to bind the vessel therefor.' We regard these words as too plain for argument. They do not allow the materialman to rest upon presumptions until he is put upon inquiry, they call upon him to inquire. To ascertain is to find out by investigation. If by investigation with reasonable diligence the materialman could have found out that the vessel was under charter, he was chargeable with notice that there was a charter; if in the same way he could have found out its terms he was chargeable with notice of its terms.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Transoceanic Terminal Corp. v. Midland Overseas Shipping Corp. · American Marine Corp. v. The Towboat Z-Fourteen

3. “The officers and agents of a vessel specified in section 972 of this title shall be taken to include such officers and agents when appointed by a charterer, by an owner pro hac vice, or by an agreed purchaser in possession of the vessel.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cooper Stevedoring of Louisiana, Inc. v. Alter Co. · Walker v. Barge IBL87