Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v. McAllister’s Empirical Analysis
337 U.S. 783 · 1949
Citation profile
369 federal appellate · 67 district · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 870 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably United States v. Williams (1995), Johansen v. United States (1952)
369 federal appellate · 67 district · 46 state decisions — followed in 12 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
reviewedMcAllister v. Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 50 U.S.C. § 4701
Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc. · United States v. Silk · Panama Co v. Johnson · Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb · Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co.
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 870 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply; and in case of the death of any seaman as a result of any such personal injury the personal representative of such seaman may maintain an action for damages at law with tlie right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States conferring or regulating the right of action for death in the case of railway employees shall be applicable. Jurisdiction in such actions shall be under the court of the district in which the defendant employer resides or in which his principal office is located.””
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“plain and rational meaning of employment and employer”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Accordingly, the first issue of fact that you are called upon to resolve is whether the plaintiff has persuaded you by a preponderance of the credible evidence that Tankers & Tramps was Graser's employer. The solution of the problem of determining the employer depends upon determining whose enterprise the operation of the vessel was. 31 Such words as 'employer' and 'agent' are not decisive. No single phrase can be said to determine the employer. One must look at the venture as a whole. Whose orders controlled the master and the crew? Whose money paid their wages? Who hired the crew? Whose initiative and judgment chose the routes and the ports of call? 32 If you decide that Tankers & Tramps was not Mr. Graser's employer, that is the end of the case, and you are duty bound to report a verdict, through your foreman, in favor of the defendant.”
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.