Emilius August Tjonaman, Libelant-Appellant v. A/s Glittre and Fearnley & Eger’s Empirical Analysis
340 F.2d 290 · 1965
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently October 1996
9 federal appellate · 1 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 Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co. · Lauritzen v. Larsen · McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional De Marineros De Honduras · Cunard Co v. Mellon · Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Oklahoma Retail Grocers Ass'n
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Some of the advantages of this simple formula are that it states a rational method of ascertaining the congressional intent, and that in its application there is no occasion to consider and ‘weigh’ the contacts that do not exist, nor to go through any process of balancing one set of facts that are present against another set of facts that are absent, without any sure guide as to how the balancing is to be done. Accordingly, the decisional process of arriving at a conclusion on the subject of the application of the Jones Act involves the ascertainment of the facts or groups of facts which constitute contacts between the transaction involved in the case and the United States, and then deciding whether or not they are substantial. * * * Moreover, each factor, or contact, or group of facts must be tested in the light of the underlying objective, which is to effectuate the liberal purposes of the Jones Act. * * *»”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The present case is readily distinguishable from the ‘flag of convenience’ cases where the foreign registration is only nominal and the vessel belongs to the nation of the flag it flies only for the purpose of avoiding the shipping laws of the United States.” [cases omitted]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * whether the substantiality of other existing factors establishing a connection with the United States is sufficient to outweigh the ‘venerable and universal rule.’ ””
1 later decision 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.