Czaplicki v. the Hoegh Silvercloud’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
313 federal appellate · 61 district · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 640 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2018 · most notably Rodriguez v. Compass Shipping Co. (1981), Manio v. Derwinski (1991)
313 federal appellate · 61 district · 36 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedCzaplicki v. The Vessel "SS Hoegh Silver-Cloud" (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 33 U.S.C. § 901 · 33 U.S.C. § 919 · 33 U.S.C. § 921 · 33 U.S.C. § 933
Relies on Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp. · Holmberg v. Armbrecht · United States v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. · Gardner v. Panama Railroad · Liverpool & Great Western Steam Co. v. Phenix Insurance
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 640 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where there has been no inexcusable delay in seeking a remedy and where no prejudice to the defendant has ensued from the mere passage of time, there should be no bar to relief.”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Acceptance of such compensation under an award in a compensation order filed by the deputy commissioner or Board shall operate as an assignment to the employer of all right of the person entitled to compensation to recover damages against such third person unless such person shall commence an action against such third person within six months after such award.””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“In giving the assignee exclusive control over the right of action, however, we think that the statute presupposes that the assignee’s interests will not be in conflict with those of the employee, and that through action of the assignee the employee will obtain his share of the proceeds of the right of action, if there is a recovery. Here, where there is such a conflict of interests, the inaction of the assignee operates to defeat the employee’s interest in any possible recovery____ In this circumstance, we think the statute should be construed to allow Czaplicki to enforce, in his own name, the rights of action that were his originally.”
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.