Hebert v. Diamond M. Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently February 2004
12 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1333
Relies on Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki · Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn · Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co. · Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad · Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc.
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“available to a litigant in a maritime or admiralty claim the same as it would be to any other civil litigant before our courts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“alters or conflicts with the maritime or admiralty law which establishes the substantive rights of the parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[a] jury trial is simply a method of enforcing substantive rights. As such, it is purely remedial . . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.