Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 360 F.2d 103 - Petrol Shipping Corporation Tanker Atlantis Kingdom of Greece Ministry of Commerce Purchase Directorate

Petrol Shipping Corporation Tanker Atlantis Kingdom of Greece Ministry of Commerce Purchase Directorate’s Empirical Analysis

360 F.2d 103 · 1966

Citation profile

60
cited by 60 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
May 2008
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2008 · most notably Omni Capital International, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co. (1987), Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc. (1992)

18 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions

21019661970198019902000decided

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 Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Sabbatino · Linkletter v. Walker · United Mine Workers of America v. Coronado Coal Co · Ex parte Republic of Peru · Arrowsmith v. United Press International

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

  1. ““[I]n an action against a sovereign just as in any other suit, jurisdiction must be acquired either by service of process, or by the defendant’s appearance in court, or in rem by seizure and control of property. Only after such jurisdiction is acquired, does the sovereign immunity defense property come into consideration. Instead of being a ‘jurisdictional’ matter in the same sense as acquiring jurisdiction over a person or property, sovereign immunity presents a ground for relinquishing the jurisdiction previously acquired.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““We do not equate ‘presence,’ or amenability to suit, with service of process * * * and we regard Rule 4 as speaking to service alone, and not both service and amenability.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[i]n all cases not provided for by rule, the district courts may regulate their practice in any manner not inconsistent with these rules.”
    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.