British Transport Commission v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

97 federal appellate · 7 district ·

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

1. “[l]ogic and efficient judicial administration require that recovery against all parties at fault is as necessary to the claimants as is the fund which limited the liability of the initial petitioner. Otherwise this proceeding is but a “water haul" for the claimants, a result completely out of character in admiralty practice.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Oldham v. Pritchett · 30 F. Supp. 3d 111 - Cruz-Aponte v. Caribbean Petroleum Corp.

2. ““Admiralty practice which has served as the origin of much of our modern federal procedure, should not be tied to the mast of legal technicalities it has been the forerunner in eliminating from other federal practices.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 157 F. Supp. 523 - Steadt v. United States · Alcoa Steamship Company, Inc. v. M/V Nordic Regent

3. ““Admiralty practice which has served as the origin of much of our modern federal procedure, should not be tied to the mast of legal technicalities it has been the forerunner in eliminating from other federal practices.” (354 U.S. p. 139, 77 S. Ct. p. 1108, 1 L.Ed.2d 1234 ) “Logic and efficient judicial administration require that recovery against all parties at fault is as necessary to the claimants as is the fund which limited the liability of the initial petitioner.” (354 U.S. p. 138, 77 S. Ct. p. 1107, 1 L.Ed.2d 1234 ) “The question is not what ‘tag’ we put on the proceeding, or whether it is a ‘suit’ under Rule 56 or a libel in personam, or whether the pleading is of an offensive or defensive nature, but rather whether the Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties. It is sufficient to say * * ‘that all the ease with which rights can be adjusted in equity is intended to be given to the [limitation] proceeding. It is the administration of equity in an admiralty court * * * It looks to a complete and just disposition of a many cornered controversy * * * ’ ” (354 U.S. p. 137, 77 S. Ct. p. 1107, 1 L.Ed.2d 1234 ) And, finally, the Court observed: “[W]e hold it a necessary concomitant of jurisdiction in a factual situation such as this one that the Court have power to adjudicate all of the demands made and arising out of the same disaster.” (354 U.S. p. 138, 77 S. Ct. p. 1108, 1 L.Ed.2d 1234 )”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Sandra & Dennis Fishing Corp.