Nasser v. Isthmian Lines’s Empirical Analysis
331 F.2d 124 · 1964
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently January 2014 · most notably Flaksa v. Little River Marine Construction Co. (1968), Dressler v. MV Sandpiper (1964)
30 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 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 Link v. Wabash Railroad · United States v. Procter & Gamble Co. · Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S. A. v. Rogers · Costello v. United States · Hammond Packing Company v. State of Arkansas
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[u]nless the [district] court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this subdivision and any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, for improper venue, or for failure to join a party under Rule 19, operates as an adjudication upon the merits.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the preclusive effect afforded dismissals by Rule 41(b) was intended to apply only to those situations in which a defendant must incur the inconvenience of preparing to meet the merits of the plaintiffs claims because there is no initial bar to the court’s reaching the merits as there would be, for illustrative purposes, if there were a defect in pleadings or parties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“place a premium on default, carelessness and callousness to duty and would tend to consign the procedural rules designed for expedition in litigation to oblivion. If this conduct were condoned, litigants or their counsel would turn a deaf ear to the processes of the court with impunity, suffering dismissals only to rise phoenix-like in new actions based on the same allegations which the plaintiff years prior failed to litigate. In a judicial system operating within a framework of rules created ‘to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action,’ such a situation is intolerable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Enciso v. Zegarelli
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.