Mahnich v. Southern Steamship Co.’s Empirical Analysis
321 U.S. 96 · 1944
Citation profile
686 federal appellate · 111 district · 114 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,417 later decisions (84 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2021 · most notably Monroe v. Pape (1961), Screws v. United States (1945)
686 federal appellate · 111 district · 114 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
reviewedMahnich v. Southern Steamship Co. (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette · The Osceola · Calmar Ss Corporation v. Taylor · Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Horton
Cited together with Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki · Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc. · The Osceola · Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn · Alaska Steamship Co. v. Petterson
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 1,417 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the present case, the court below naturally felt bound to follow and apply the law as clearly announced by this court. If litigants and lower federal courts are not to do so, the law becomes not a chart to govern conduct but a game of chance; instead of settling rights and liabilities it unsettles them. Counsel and parties will bring and prosecute actions in the teeth of the decisions that such actions are not maintainable on the not improbable chance that the asserted rule will be thrown overboard. Defendants will not know whether to litigate or to settle for they will have no assurance that a declared rule will be followed. But the more deplorable consequence will inevitably be that the administration of justice will fall into disrepute.” (Emphasis added.)”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to accept, without critical examination and without protest, working conditions and appliances as commanded by [their] superior officers,”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he exercise of due diligence does not relieve the owner of his obligation to the seaman to furnish adequate appliances. . . . If the owner is liable for furnishing an unseaworthy appliance, even when he is not negligent, a fortiori his obligation is unaffected by the fact that the negligence of the officers of the vessel contributed to the unseaworthiness”
4 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.