Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 37 F.2d 355 - In re Eastern Transp. Co.

In re Eastern Transp. Co.’s Empirical Analysis

37 F.2d 355 · 1929

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
1
states following
May 1984
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently May 1984

5 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions

1101929193019401950196019701980decided

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 La Bourgogne · Craig v. Continental Insurance · Lord v. Steamship Co. · In re East River Towing Co. · The 84-H

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

  1. ““A further ai'gument made by claimant carries more weight. It is to the effect that, since there was no mark or abrasion behind or on either side of the opening, such as it is reasonable to assume must have been made if the vessel, while afloat, freed itself from the obstruction, this indicates that the damage was not caused before she sank. Had the barge freed itself while under way from the obstruction, such escape would, it would seem, have been evidenced by greater injux'y to the planking at the last point of contact. ****** “What, then, is the inevitable result of the weight of the credible evidence? That the hole was caused either as the Calvert foundered, or in the course of the salvage operations. While there is no evidence that the injury was inflicted in the course of the salvage operations, this inference is the more reasonable because of the means, heretofore described, that had to be employed in order to raise her and get her to dry dock; that is to say, the chances of causing this kind of injury to her were very substantial. No one saw the vessel’s bottom until she was dry-docked. Then, for the first time, the scoring and the hole became known. The damage may have been due to no negligence on the part of the salvors, but to the difficulties surrounding their task”. In re Eastern Transp. Co., The Calvert, 37 F.2d 355 , 361, D.C.Maryland, affirmed 4 Cir., 51 F.2d 494 .”
    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.