Mrs. Sam Rotolo v. The Halliburton Company’s Empirical Analysis
317 F.2d 9 · 1963
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently March 1994 · most notably Jethro Barrett v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., E.B.B. Co., Inc. And Lift Barge, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Company, Intervenor-Appellant (1986), Producers Drilling Co. v. Gray (1966)
45 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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 Offshore Company and the Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, Appellants v. Johnie M. Robison, Appellee-Appellant. Robison v. Offshore Company and the Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York · Braniff v. Jackson Ave.-Gretna Ferry, Inc. · Beota Rogers Thibodeaux v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., and the Travelers Insurance Company, J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., and the Travelers Insurance Company, Cross-Appellant v. Beota Rogers Thibodeaux, Cross-Appellee
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) if there is evidence that the injured workman was assigned permanently to a vessel (including special purpose structures not usually employed as a means of transport by water but designed to float on water) or performed a substantial part of his work on the vessel; and (2) if the capacity in which he was employed or the duties which he performed contributed to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission, or to the operation or welfare of the vessel in terms of its maintenance during its movement or during anchorage for its future trips.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“While the question whether a person injured in the course of his employment was a seaman within the meaning of that term, as used in the Jones Act, is one of fact, and the trend of the decisions in this and other courts has been to expand the meaning of such term, it does not follow that in every case involving the question whether the injured person was a seaman, there is an issue of fact which must be submitted to the jury for determination”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“that there [would have been] no reasonable evidentiary basis to support a jury finding that Rotolo * * * was a seaman”
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.