Scott v. Isbrandtsen Co.’s Empirical Analysis
327 F.2d 113 · 1964
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2010 · most notably Waldron v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. (1967), 16 Mass. App. Ct. 163 - Terrio v. McDONOUGH HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO. (1983)
47 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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 Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki · Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn · Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc. · Mahnich v. Southern Steamship Co. · Crumady v. the Joachim Hendrik Fisser
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] trial court has discretion in the use of special verdicts and this discretion is not limited to the decision with respect to such use but extends beyond to the form of the submitted interrogatories once such decision is made. Although the court is vested with a wide discretion as to the form and substance of the interrogatories, all material factual issues should be covered by the questions submitted. The number and form of issues, if they present the case fairly, are matters resting in the sound discretion of the trial judge. Generally, Rule 49(a) permits submission of special interrogatories to juries on issues of fact, but if an issue presents a mixed question of fact and law it may be submitted if the jury is instructed as to the legal standards to be applied; the form of the special issues should be such as not to mislead or confuse the jury.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. District of Columbia v. Banks · William T. Bright Ed King Dee Barwick Lowell Lawson Frank Jorgensen Bright of America, Incorporated, a West Virginia Corporation v. Qsp, Incorporated, William T. Bright Ed King Dee Barwick Lowell Lawson Frank Jorgensen Bright of America, Incorporated, a West Virginia Corporation v. Qsp, Incorporated“The obvious trend of the Supreme Court decisions is toward providing ever increasing protection for crewmen, longshoremen and even others employed by independent contractors who may be called upon to work aboard vessels.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is no need to belabor the obvious. The factual findings necessary to support the severe penalty imposed below could not be made without reference to the applicable Aviation Regulations.... [Rule 49(a)], which deals with special verdicts and interrogatories, provides that the court shall give the jury such explanation and instruction as is necessary to enable the jury to make its findings. If, as in this case, an interrogatory is a mixed question of fact and law, the jury must be instructed as to the legal standards they are to apply.”
2 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.