Caldarola v. Eckert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

70 federal appellate · 8 district · 33 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 230 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Petitioner insists, in order to enable him to sue in the courts of New York, that the Agents are to be deemed, as a matter of federal law, owners of the vessel pro hac vice and, therefore, as a matter of State law, subject to the duties of such ownership under New York law toward business invitees. We reject this construction. “Our previous decisions do not require it Hust v. Moore-McCormack Lines, supra, arose under the Jones Act. Act of March 4, 1915, 38 Stat. 1185 , as amended, June 5, 1920, 41 Stat. 1007 , 46 U.S.C.A. § 688 . We there held that under the Agency contract the Agent was the ‘employer’ of an injured seaman as that term is used in the Jones Act, and a seaman could therefore bring the statutory action against such an ‘employer.’ The Court did not hold that the Agency contract made the Agent for all practical purposes the owner of the vessel. It did not hold that it imposed upon him, as a matter of federal law, duties of care to third persons, more particularly to a stevedore under employment of a concern unloading the vessel pursuant to a contract with the United States.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dichmann, Wright & Pugh, Inc. v. Weade · 35 Wash. 2d 129 - Ellingson v. American Mail Line, Ltd.

2. ““The New York Court of Appeals authoritatively determines who is liable, in New York, for such an occurrence as that of which Caldarola complains. Insofar as the issues in this case exclusively concern New York law, that court had the final say in holding that one in the relation of the respondents to the petitioner is not liable for the tort of which the latter complains. But to the extent that the determination of tort liability in New York is entangled with the construction of the contract between the Agents and the United States, the interpretation of that contract is a matter of federal concern and is not concluded by the meaning which the State court may find in it.” (p. 158.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 35 Wash. 2d 129 - Ellingson v. American Mail Line, Ltd.

3. “No doubt petitioner could have sued the United States in Admiralty. * * * He chose not to do so. Presumably to obtain the benefit of trial by jury, he asked for relief from New York. There is no question that the injury of which Caldarola complains is a maritime tort. As such it is suable in the State courts by virtue of § 9 of the Judiciary Act of [September 24] 1789 which saves `to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 5 N.J. Super. 167 - Bono v. Mellor