Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 346 U.S. 406 - Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn

Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

2,890
cited by 2,890 later decisions
97
cited 97 times by the Supreme Court
24
states following
May 2022
most recently cited

1,522 federal appellate · 191 district · 292 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 2,890 later decisions (97 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2022 · most notably Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp. (1956), Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co. (1959)

1,522 federal appellate · 191 district · 292 state decisions — followed in 24 states

788019531960197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedHawn v. Pope & Talbot, Inc. (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 33 U.S.C. § 901

Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki · The Osceola · Mahnich v. Southern Steamship Co.

Cited together with Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki · Alaska Steamship Co. v. Petterson · Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp. · Mahnich v. Southern Steamship Co. · The Osceola

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 2,890 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[S]tates may sometimes supplement federal maritime policies....”
    34 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “but on the type of work he did and its relationship to the ship and to the historic doctrine of seaworthiness. The ship on which Hawn was hurt was being loaded when the grain loading equipment developed a slight defect. Hawn was put to work on it so that the loading could go on at once. There he was hurt. His need for protection from unseaworthiness was neither more nor less than that of the stevedores then working with him on the ship or of seamen who had been or were about to go on a voyage. All were subjected to the same danger. All were entitled to like treatment under law.”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of: (1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.